%.^ : 






'*/....% - ■-. 



* oV 



^«0 









' » « - ^ap 









V 




•^ ^ -^c* : 

** °- «* - : .1S 









^ -Vfi 






^ <& -.tSbV .^<3» -.BBS; ,£ <*■ : V. 






«b. 



&>< 



^-^ 






















^ °- ,*3 * 






.<* 






MM°%^ -i 




ill* ^ -lil§° ^ "l ^<* *■■ : V* 












'••-^ 









'■fc<0 



/ 






/ . • s * & 



X. '- 









■# 






*+i. $ 






s 



» « •> \ v 



Q-, *, 



THE PROPHET OF 
NAZARETH 



BY 



NATHANIEL SCHMIDT 

rmOl l.SSOR Or SEMITIC LANG V AGES AND LITERATrHK> 

IN CORNEl I IS 1\ EHSITY 

DIRECTOR OK T1IK AMERICAN SCHOOL OF 

ARCHEOLOGY IN JERUSALEM 



/9rto got* 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO.. Ltd. 

1905 

All rights reserved 






LIBRARY of CONGRESS 
Two Copies Received 

DEC 4 1905 

__Cooynfht Entry 
CLASS /> XXc. No. 

/J 2 1>%Z 

COPY B. 



COPYRIGHT. 1906 

BT the macmillan company 

Set up and electrotyped 
Published December. 1905 



The Mason Press 
syracuse. new york 



/ £if 



S2> 



THE PROPHET OF 
NAZARETH 



*&& &' 



PREFACE 

This volume is not the manifesto of a school, a sect, or a 
party. The author acknowledges with gratitude the help- 
ful suggestions and inspiring influence of every great 
thinker and every faithful worker with whom he has come 
in contact. But he has endeavored, so far as possible, to 
see with his own eyes the character of each important prob- 
lem, and to present in his own language, simply and un- 
equivocally, the conclusions to which many years of study 
and reflection have led him. In attempting to make a com- 
prehensive statement within narrow limits of space, he has 
often been obliged to give the bare results where it would 
have been a pleasure to outline the course of protracted in- 
vestigation. More frequently, a few suggestions of decisive 
facts will convince the reader familiar with the problems 
that nothing has been taken for granted without fresh ex- 
amination. Wherever it seemed necessary to indicate care- 
fully the grounds for a view not yet fully understood or 
generally adopted, the author has had no hesitancy in doing 
so at sufficient length. Particularly is this the case with the 
question as to the origin and significance of the term "son 
of man. ' ' As the author was the first to suggest that Jesus 
never used this term concerning himself, either to claim 
Messiahship in any sense, or to hint that he was "a mere 
man, ' ' or * ' the true man, ' ' but in some pregnant utterances 
used it in reference to ' ' man ' ' in general, his duties, rights, 
and privileges, he has felt it incumbent upon himself to at- 
tempt such a re-interpretation of the life and teaching of 
Jesus in the light of this conviction as has been urgently and 
rightly demanded. 

To bring out more fully the significance of this changed 
estimate of Jesus, it appeared desirable to examine the basis 
of ecclesiastical Christology in the supposed Messianic 

vii 



viii PBEFACE 

prophecies and types of the Old Testament, and the real 
teachings concerning the Messiah in later Jewish literature, 
as well as the character and intrinsic worth of the Christ of 
dogma. It has been the aim of the author to treat with 
sympathy and reverence a conception that has for so many 
centuries furnished spiritual nourishment to men, and to 
point out the historic value, not less real because rela- 
tive and transitory, of this and kindred ideas destined to 
pass away ; but also to set the old and the new over against 
each other so clearly that men may see that there is no pos- 
sible return to the past, and no permanent escape from the 
consequences of scientific research by such compromises as 
are affected by many at the present time. The abandon- 
ment of erroneous positions is a duty, even if it implies un- 
certainty and apparent loss. It should be regarded as an 
inestimable privilege, when it renders possible a deeper in- 
sight into the historic reality, and when it becomes manifest 
that this reality transcends in moral value the fiction it dis- 
places. 

Just and thoughtful men will always remember with grat- 
itude the master-builders who reared the imposing struc- 
ture of Christian dogma and the faithful believers of every 
name and denomination who have translated its most valu- 
able thought into lives of spiritual beauty. But as the bless- 
ings of a truer knowledge and a larger faith become appar- 
ent, they will also accord due honor to the master-miners 
who have shattered the foundations of untenable dogmas, 
and most of all, to the souls who, free from the bondage of 
external authority or the ambition for earthly rewards, have 
passionately striven for the truth, drawn inspiration from 
noble lives, imposed upon themselves wise rules of con- 
duct, and labored for the emancipation and improvement of 
the human race, in truest imitation of him who lived and 
died for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. 

The last revision of this work has been made in Pala- 
tine. Jews, Christians and Muslims have covered the whole 
land with a net-work of traditions. It would be difficult to 
find a place mentioned in the Bible that has not been identi- 



In apemoriam 



VIKTOR RYDBERG EBENEZER DODGE 

AUGUST DILLMANN 



Die* diem docet 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I 
The Christ of the Creeds 1 

CHAPTER II 
The Decline of Dogma 11 

CHAPTER III 
The Old Testament Basis 35 

CHAPTER IV 
The Jewish Messiah 68 

CHAPTER V 
The Son of Man 94 

CHAPTER VI 
The Son of God 135 

CHAPTER VII 
The Logos 159 

CHAPTER VIII 
The Secondary Sources 174 

CHAPTER IX 
The Gospels 205 

CHAPTER X 
The Life of Jesus 240 

CHAPTER XI 
The Teaching of Jesus 293 

CHAPTER XTI 
The Historic Influence of Jesus 318 

CHAPTER XIII 
The Present Problem 340 

xi 



xii CONTENTS 



CHAPTER XIV 
The Leadership of Jesus 360 

EXCURSUS A 
Gnosticism 387 

EXCURSUS B 
Tee Collegia Vicentina o 390 

EXCURSUS C 
The Resurrection » 392 

INDEXES 

Index op Subjects 399 

Index of Authors « 408 

Index op Texts 414 



PEEFACE ix 

fied, or a story told in its pages that has not been located. 
The pilgrims to these sacred sites nourish their faith by be- 
holding the very spots where the great miracles of the past 
took place, and see in the more or less ancient relics which 
"are with us to this day" evidences of their occurrence. 
It is sad to reflect that the loss of this naive faith would 
probably rob most of them of the only great enthusiasm or 
touch of ideality that ever enters into their monotonous ex- 
istence. Less sympathetic is the credulity of learned men 
who easily persuade themselves of the accuracy of any tra- 
dition concerning the scenes of Jesus ' life that can be traced 
back to the time of Constantine, as though there were not 
room enough in three centuries for many a memory to pass 
away and many a loose conjecture to grow up into a time- 
honored tradition! As the student of the literary docu- 
ments must go behind his text, seeking to reconstruct its 
original form and estimate its value, so the archaeologist 
must free himself from the tyranny of topographical tradi- 
tion, and learn to treat it as a useful servant. If at first the 
scantiness of positive results seems a loss, there gradually 
comes a sense of real gain. 

For, after all, it was in this little land that Jesus lived 
and died. His eyes looked up to this blue Syrian sky, and 
rested lovingly upon these hills and valleys. In the vicin- 
ity of yonder lake of Galilee he worked as a carpenter and 
taught as a prophet. In this city and its immediate neigh- 
borhood he spent his last days. Here, as elsewhere, nature 
sets its stamp upon man. In spite of all changes, the people 
of the land has preserved through the ages substantially the 
same manner of life and modes of speech, social conven- 
tions, customs and occupations, religious views and prac- 
tices, and general outlook upon the world. The Arabic dia- 
lect spoken is more like Hebrew than the language of the 
Qur'an is: and the ordinary fellahin of to-day probably re- 
semble the Galilean peasantry of nineteen centuries ago 
more than the modern Jew does, with the Talmud, the 
Ghetto and the Renaissance in his blood. It was with such 
simple folk as one sees every day in the villages of Palestine 



x PREFACE 

that Jesus grew up and mingled as a man, and the classes 
with which he came into conflict may still be found in this 
holy city of three religions. Only here was the career of 
the Prophet of Nazareth possible. To understand both the 
factors that determined his character and his real great- 
ness, his personality and his message should be seen against 
the background of his land as well as of his people and his 
time. The life of Jesus fits its environment in nature not 
less perfectly than its place in history. 

During the preparation of this work many valuable sug- 
gestions and friendly counsels have been offered by Dr. 
James M. Whiton, for which the author desires to express 
his gratitude. In dedicating the volume to the memory of 
three illustrious teachers to whom he owes much, he wishes 
to intimate also his indebtedness to three universities where 
it was his privilege to study, and to three nations to which 
he is bound by the strongest ties. 

Jerusalem, January, 1905. 

THE AUTHOR. 



THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

CHAPTER I 
THE CHRIST OF THE CEEEDS 

Every man is a creed-maker. He forms his view of the 
world by observation of external reality and reflection upon 
the states of his own consciousness. His interpretation of 
life is subject to constant change, and is at no moment quite 
identical with that of any other man. In proportion as his 
range of vision is wide and his judgment accurate, his creed 
differentiates itself and assumes a distinctive character. 
Disinterested search for truth by capable and independent 
minds leads to diversity of belief, as well as to increase of 
knowledge. 

But there is also a collective creed-making. Similarity 
of origin and environment tends to create similarity of life 
and thought. In family, political society, and cult-com- 
munity, there is a ceaseless labor to produce a common creed 
and to express in common customs this corporate faith. A 
tradition, based on the accumulated experience and thought 
of many generations, presents itself as an invaluable aid to 
the individual in the formative period of his life, and con- 
tinues to be his chief assistance, stimulus, and corrective, 
whatever new facts he may discover, and however discrimi- 
nating his judgment may be. This tradition changes with 
the growth of the social organism. A collective creed never 
implies uniformity of belief. But the transformation is 
slower than in the case of the individual, and similarity of 
view is a strong cohesive force. The common creed pro- 
duces unity of purpose, efficiency of practical endeavor, and 
assurance of faith. 

1 



THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 



The power of beliefs largely adopted by society, and em- 
bodied in its life, to shape the thoughts of men, is counter- 
balanced by the reaction upon society of new ideas backed 
by strong personalities. The centripetal force is equalled 
in the long run by the centrifugal force, the tendency to 
preserve the type by the tendency to vary the type. "Where 
freedom of thought and speech gives opportunity for the 
development of a distinct personal creed and for influencing 
public opinion, while the social creed, whether symbolized 
in formulas or merely found in a general understanding, is 
sensitive and flexible, the balance of these forces is best 
maintained. To the importance of the personal initiative 
is due the development of creeds concerning great men. 
Mighty rulers holding nations in subjection, forceful char- 
acters assuming leadership, wonder-workers possessing un- 
usual powers, sagacious interpreters of nature's life, en- 
thusiastic heralds of some fresh evangel, naturally become 
the objects of interest, curiosity and worship. The mysteri- 
ous power exercised by these men is more readily felt than 
explained. No human life can be fully known. Much 
must always be left for imagination to supply. Imagination 
may resort to local setting and historic circumstance, or it 
may draw upon the general characteristics of a class. A 
man's inner life cannot escape the effect of the nature that 
surrounds him, the social milieu in which he finds himself. 
A prophet is likely to do a prophet's work, a king to shine in 
royal splendor, a sage to unlock nature's mysteries. The 
influence of a great man is only in part due to what he ac- 
tually says, or does, or is: in a large measure it is due to 
this tendency to eke out the known facts with more or less 
plausible conjectures drawn from environment, analogy, 
or ideal. 

At a certain stage of human development, the secret of 
heroic lives is found in their connection with a higher world. 
Beings greater than man, it is thought, give to their chosen 
ones strength that is more than human, and knowledge that 
lies beyond the reach of man's unaided intellect. But such 
gifts would not come to them, if they were not of finer clay 



THE CHEIST OF THE CEEEDS 



than ordinary mortals. Their destiny is higher, their or- 
igin more sublime. When they depart from earth, they are 
not left to see corruption, but go to share the divine nature, 
and to receive divine worship. When they appear on earth, 
they are not born of the will of man, but come from a celes- 
tial world and have a divine paternity. Euhemerus sug- 
gested that all gods had once lived as men upon the earth. 
This is a defective generalization. Countless men, warriors, 
judges, patriarchs, kings, sages, prophets, have, indeed, be- 
come gods. But innumerable gods have also become men, 
not only by the gradual transformation of nature-spirits 
into the image of man, but by an actual entrance upon the 
life of a human being, by an incarnation. 

It is natural that the category of divinity dominates the 
conception of even the earthly life of such personalities. 
Faith does not live by verifiable facts of history alone ; it 
clings for its support to the present ideal ; it seeks the eter- 
nal truth and grace that once flashed forth in sudden rays of 
incarnate beauty. 

One of the mightiest conceptions that ever swayed the 
mind of man is the Christ of the great ecumenic creeds. 
These creeds register the results of centuries of thought; 
they set forth the finished product of a long development. 
The roots of the idea lie deep in Hebrew antiquity. The 
prophetic movement prepared the way for it. Political 
hopes, doomed to disappointment, rose to furnish the ma- 
terial of its growth. In the apocalyptic literature of the 
Roman period, the Messiah appeared. An interpretation, 
true to prevalent methods and fit to meet the needs of the 
age, discovered his lineaments in many a passage of the 
Hebrew Bible, and in many a person, custom, or institution, 
a type of his character and reign. Early Christian litera- 
ture, not less than the Aramaic Targums, testifies to this. 
Thus the Old Testament became the source whence appar- 
ently the Messianic ideal issued forth. The converging 
point of all its streams was the life of Jesus. If the tradi- 
tion of this life was enriched by features taken from the 
prophetic word, the scope of Messianic prophecy was en- 



THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 



larged at the suggestion of incidents in the biography. 
But the writers of the New Testament did not only work to- 
gether Biblical material with the tradition of what Jesus had 
said and done ; they also built upon foundations that had 
been laid in Greece and in the Orient. The strong Hellenis- 
tic element in the New Testament facilitated a continuous 
development of thought. It was not altogether a new world 
the first Greek converts to Christianity were bidden to enter. 
There were, indeed, many ideas that must have seemed very 
strange, but also some that were quite familiar. The most 
advanced type of Christology, which to the ordinary Jew 
was least comprehensible and most objectionable, is likely 
to have been one of the most congenial. There is no chasm 
between the latest forms of thought in the New Testament 
and the conceptions prevalent in other Christian writings 
of the second century. However imperfect their methods 
of interpretation may appear to modern minds, it would be 
wrong to charge the Greek apologists and fathers with seri- 
ously mistaking the trend of New Testament teaching. 
And the great ecumenic creeds rest upon patristic Christol- 
ogy. These creeds are a consistent development of certain 
ideas that unquestionably hold an important place in New 
Testament literature. 1 

It was honestly felt by some of the keenest minds of the 
fourth century that the Christ they defined by dogma was 
none else than the divine personality whose advent was pre- 
dicted by the Old Testament and proclaimed by the New 

1 Eitschl and his school rightly emphasized the fresh influence of 
Greek speculation upon the developing Christian dogma that came 
with the first educated converts from paganism. But they were in- 
clined to overlook the large element of Greek thought that already 
existed among the Hellenistic Jews, to whom we owe the most impor- 
tant types of Christology in the New Testament. Similarly, the early 
Unitarians rendered a valuable service by pointing out that the doc- 
trine of the Trinity was nowhere distinctly taught in the New Testa- 
ment, as had been erroneously maintained, but themselves erred when, 
seeking Scriptural support for their conception of Jesus, they failed 
to give their full weight and natural significance to passages that un- 
mistakably tend in the direction of this doctrine. 



THE CHEIST OF THE CREEDS 



Testament. This conviction was well nigh inevitable. Was 
not the Old Testament full of distinct prophecies of the com- 
ing of Christ, his life, his death and his resurrection ? Did 
it not contain types clearly pointing to him? Had not 
these prophecies and types been recognized by New Testa- 
ment writers, nay, by Jesus himself? Did not his life cor- 
respond to the prophetic picture? Had he not claimed to 
be the Messiah and been declared by God to be his only Son ? 
Were not the miracles he wrought a ratification of his 
claims? And must he not have been very God to accom- 
plish the work of man 's redemption, to abrogate the law, to 
satisfy the demands of infinite justice, to offer an accept- 
able sacrifice for the sins of the world, and to open the gates 
of paradise to all believers ? Only a being who was at the 
same time true God and true man could restore fallen man 
to his original state of purity, heal the mortal wound in- 
flicted on him in the garden of Eden, overcome the devil's 
power, and conquer death itself. 

While thus the Christ-conception authoritatively pre- 
sented by the church appeared to be fully verified by the 
recognized standards of divine revelation, an even more im- 
portant ratification of the doctrine came from Christian 
experience. This divinely human being was not simply a 
historic personage belonging to the past. Nor was he a 
mere abstraction, a product of idle speculation. He was a 
present reality, the object of love and worship. He was a 
living source of spiritual blessings. Communion with him 
gave power to overcome the bondage of sin, to endure the 
ills of life, to face courageously even the last enemy. It 
flooded the soul with a joy that the world could not give, 
a boundless hope, and a sympathy that reached down to 
earth's little ones, the weak, the ignorant, the debased. It 
was a refuge in all hours of need. The believer knew that 
his Redeemer lived, and that no words could adequately ex- 
press his supreme worth, from an experience that was more 
real to him than were the shifting scenes and sensations of 
earth-bound life. Affection, as well as thought, centered 
upon him and demanded to know what he was. The def- 



6 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

inition was a work of adoring love not less than of profound 
meditation. There were other forces at work. The shad- 
ows fall wherever the sun shines. But the chief factors in 
the construction of Christological dogma were an honest in- 
terpretation of the Scriptures and an equally honest inter- 
pretation of the facts of Christian experience. 

This Christ-conception has been perpetuated by the same 
forces that gave it existence. If it owed its finally prevail- 
ing form to ecclesiastical authority, by ecclesiastical author- 
ity it has been upheld. Men have sought to make it their 
own because of this authority, from love or fear of conse- 
quences, or unreflecting conformity. The resources of ec- 
clesiastical power have been employed to discourage men 
from adopting different views. Yet this external pressure 
has probably contributed much less than is generally sup- 
posed to the longevity of dogma. 

Of greater and more permanent significance is the au- 
thority ascribed to the Scriptures. As the Christ of the 
creeds would not have become what he was but for the au- 
thority of that divine revelation which, as it was inter- 
preted, outlined precisely such a personality in prophecy 
and fulfilment, in type and antitype, so he has remained un- 
changed through the centuries in no small measure by vir- 
tue of the authority accorded to these Scriptures which, it 
was felt, bore witness of him. But even the assertion of 
infallible authority would not secure such a recognition as 
this conception has had. 

Only a genuine personal conviction can explain the long 
and general acceptance of the Christ of the creeds. This 
conviction has, to a great extent, been formed by a consci- 
entious study of the sources. Starting with certain primal 
assumptions, the student cannot easily reach any other con- 
clusion: and these assumptions are so natural that it does 
not readily occur to him even to question them. If the tra- 
dition that ascribes the Gospels to immediate followers of 
Jesus is accepted, and the correctness of their use of the Old 
Testament is taken for granted, the result cannot be doubt- 
ful. The early narratives in Genesis will then be regarded 



THE CHEIST OF THE CEEEDS 



as historical; the political hopes of Israel as Messianic 
prophecies; personalities, events and institutions of the 
chosen people as types of Christ; the sayings reported in 
the Gospels as the very words of Jesus; the lofty claims 
that some of these utterances contain in connection with the 
miracles recorded as evidence of a double personality, hu- 
man and divine, not unfittingly described in the terms of 
the great creeds. On the other hand, why should not eye- 
witnesses have written down the story of Jesus ' life ? And 
who would be better fitted for interpreting the divine reve- 
lation of the past than the immediate recipients of the 
crowning revelation in which the old found its fulfilment? 

Even the most enlightened and truth-seeking of men, pro- 
ceeding from such general assumptions, would naturally see 
in the New Testament authority for seeking in the Old Tes- 
tament a prophetic description of Christ, in the fulfilment of 
prophecy in the New Testament evidence of the authority of 
the Old Testament, and in the dogma of the Church a legiti- 
mate statement of the most essential teachings of both. A 
different estimate is precluded by modes of interpreta- 
tion that receive their sanction from apostolic use. The 
allegorical method draws attention away from gram- 
matical sense, literary form, and historic setting, to a hidden 
meaning organically connected with the body of accepted 
doctrine. It finds the same unchanged ideas everywhere in 
the Scriptures. Its legacy is a certain inability to distin- 
guish between things that differ, an often unconscious ten- 
dency to overlook inconsistencies and contradictions, a 
proneness to view ideas scattered through a literature ex- 
tending over a thousand years as integral parts of one sys- 
tem of thought, a lack of historic sense. The very looseness 
of an interpretation that cannot quite emancipate itself 
from these effects of the allegorical method may add strength 
to conviction, since it removes all obstacles and allows sub- 
jective faith to see its own reflection in the Bible. 

But the most powerful influence tending to perpetuate 
the Christological dogma is, without question, the associa- 
tion, in the mind of the believer, of the statements of the 



THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 



creed with the experiences of his own soul. A nature foul 
with inherited evil proclivities and acquired sinful habits is 
cleansed and filled with holy aspirations, love of goodness, 
and spiritual power by contact with the Son of God. In- 
stead of doubt and perplexity, moral weakness and an aim- 
less drifting with the fashions of the world, a fruitless search 
for pleasure and a cheerless labor, a dull indifference to fate 
or a constant fear of death, there are the light and power of 
an all conquering faith, the strenuous effort to realize a high 
ideal, the joy of work for noble ends, and the hope of an 
immortal life. The dangers that beset man 's life no longer 
terrify, no earth-born happiness can enthral, the tenderest 
ties have no power to bind to earth the citizen of a heavenly 
Jerusalem who lives in mystic union with- his Lord. This 
stream of life points to a living fountain, a source never 
contaminated with impurity. As the believing soul draws 
nearer to the Christ, he breathes a purer air ; the atmosphere 
of holiness surrounds him, and he feels more keenly his own 
sinfulness. The more completely he surrenders his will and 
heart to his divine Master, the more manifest is his grace. 
"What the Christ is to-day he must have been yesterday. 
How could he have been born of "the will of the flesh"? 
Can the pure come from the impure ? How could he be the 
Saviour from sin that a redeemed nature with its every 
fibre proclaims him to be, unless his life had been an abso- 
lutely sinless one? Were the miracles performed by the 
lake of Galilee more wonderful than the miracles unques- 
tionably wrought in the inner life of many a soul? How 
could God's Holy One be left in the clutches of death? 
Must he not be the first-fruits of a resurrection whose power 
does not wait for death to manifest itself? He whose life 
is hid with Christ in God is led by his own experience, and 
no longer because others have told him about the Son of God, 
to confess that in him the divine that men must worship 
blends indistinguishably with a humanity that men cannot 
behold without emulating its supreme virtues. 

The Christ of the creeds has thus maintained a hold upon 
the most advanced nations of mankind chiefly through the 



THE CHEIST OF THE CEEEDS 



study of the Scriptures and the concurrent testimony of 
Christian experience. The methods pursued in the study of 
the Bible rendered its interpretation in all essential points 
more certain from age to age. The type of Christian experi- 
ence and character produced under the influence of Christian 
dogma brought conviction of the essential soundness of this 
interpretation home to generation after generation of men. 
This does not imply that the conception has been the same in 
all minds. In point of fact no two minds have ever conceived 
of the God-man in precisely the same manner. The world 
of thought in which a thirteenth century scholastic, or a 
sixteenth century reformer, moved was in many respects 
different from that familiar to a Greek father of the fourth 
century. But the great currents of thought seem to have 
largely swept past the domain of Christology, and the com- 
mon formulas represent a considerable similarity of view. 
It is impossible to contemplate this wonderful conception 
that has exercised an influence so vast and uplifting in 
human history without the deepest reverence and gratitude. 
A long procession marches down the ages bearing trophies 
to this Christ. Among them are men of genius and men of 
faith, evangelists and martyrs, thinkers and reformers, 
knights and statesmen, missionaries and philanthropists. 
There are rare and radiant spirits of whom the world was 
not worthy, pure, high-minded, self-forgetful, rich in faith 
and hope and charity. And there is an innumerable host of 
men and women rescued from sensuality and greed to lives 
of purity and gentle service. These all proclaim him Sa- 
viour, Lord and God. In his name they have fought the good 
fight, borne their burdens gladly, fed the hungry, clothed 
the naked, freed the slave, lifted up woman, educated the 
child, brought peace to the earth. If in his name men have 
also perpetrated deeds of darkness, it has only been neces- 
sary to look more closely into his face, even as tradition 
painted it, to see the look of disapproval. Through him the 
divine has come very near to the human, time has been 
lapped in the bosom of eternity, life has received a new 
meaning. 



10 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

Perhaps no man ever felt the intrinsic worth of the 
prophecy, the psalmody, the legislation of the Old Testa- 
ment as deeply as he who, having looked upon the face of 
the heavenly Christ, saw the glory vanish from the cove- 
nant of the letter. So it may be that the beauty of the Christ 
is best seen, the grandeur and power of the celestial Son of 
God are most fully appreciated, by him whose eyes have 
been entranced by the surpassing glory of the new concep- 
tion that is destined to take its place, the ideal suggested 
by the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as a critical study of the 
records is able to restore it. 



CHAPTER II 

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 

Parallel with the process through which the collective 
creed is authoritatively formulated and permanently fixed 
runs the tendency of individual creed-making to sap its 
foundations and to produce divergent types of belief. The 
ethical and religious impulses of primitive Christianity, 
while furnishing the material for dogma, prevented its crys- 
tallization. "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is lib- 
erty." Where liberty reigns, uniformity is impossible. 
This liberty, however, in the first period, largely resulted 
from the predominance of practical interests. Seeing that 
the world would soon pass away, and the Master return on 
the clouds as the Messiah, what manner of men ought the 
disciples of Jesus to be ? x This was the great question. The 
emphasis was on conduct. 

When, subsequently, reflection upon the character and 
source of the new life tended to produce a common creed, it 
remained sensitive to the influence of powerful personalities. 
Such was the force of the spiritual impact, such the convic- 
tion wrought by a deep experience, that these men could not 
refrain from asserting their right to be heard. Such was 
their sense of the inexhaustible riches of the truth as it was 
in Jesus, such their joy in the new world of thought that had 
been opened to them, that men were inclined to welcome 
with broad hospitality ideas of different provenience and 
value. There was indeed no doctrine of toleration, no rec- 
ognition of the necessity of divergence, or of the right to dif- 
fer. Dissenters were anathematized. The radicalism of 
the Pauline epistles claimed for itself a freedom that it was 
not quite willing to accord to the conservatives. The ad- 

1 2 Peter, ii, 11. This formulation is late, but the thought is early. 

11 




12 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

vanced theology of the Johannine literature handled the ele- 
ments of tradition with sovereign independence, and its 
deep spiritual intuition pointed to love as the essence of 
life; yet it could not quite refrain from basing fellowship 
upon doctrinal agreement. But the fact that so widely di- 
vergent types of thought as those found in the Synoptic, 
Pauline and Johannine writings could develop at all, and 
secure recognition side by side among the treasures of the 
Church, is none the less significant. It shows that dogma 
could not crystallize in such an atmosphere. 

The allegorical method of the Alexandrian rhetoricians 
and the epoch-making philosophy of Philo, while supplying 
the instruments for the development of dogma, were dan- 
gerous allies threatening its life. This method, however, 
saved the Old Testament in its conflict with Greek thought. 
This philosophy rescued the Messiah. By allegorizing it is 
possible to see the invisible, to discover behind the literal 
sense a meaning not intended by the author but demanded 
by the interpreter, to explain all contradictions and to re- 
move all difficulties. Philo 's keen intellect perceived many 
of the facts that have forced ancient and modern critics to 
a different estimate of the Bible. But these very facts con- 
vinced him of the accuracy of his method. He was per- 
suaded that the world could not have been made in six days, 
that the first woman was not fashioned from a man's ribs, 
that serpents cannot speak and fruits cannot give knowl- 
edge, and that God is neither subject to fits of passion nor 
in need of repentance. The words of the Bible could not, 
therefore, mean what they seemed to mean. They were 
symbols of deeper spiritual processes. There is no dishon- 
esty in this reasoning, as long as it is sincerely felt to be the 
only rational way of accounting for certain facts that are 
frankly admitted. Armed with this method, the Church 
was prepared to resist the attacks of Gnostic teachers and of 
such men as Celsus and Porphyry. 

The Messianic idea could not thrive except in the soil of 
Palestine. Here was the throne of the coming King ; here 
was the home of the eschatological speculation that threw 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 13 

such a glamor about his person. In the rarefied air of Alex- 
andria it was difficult for either the Messianic hope or the 
apocalyptic frame of mind to survive. Philo's Messiah is 
a mere shadow that has no place in his system of thought. 
The hope that a deceased teacher, once known and loved, 
would come back to earth as the Messiah might fill with en- 
thusiasm the men of Galilee, but not profoundly affect 
either Greek or barbarian. In the Hellenistic world this 
exotic plant would have drooped and died but for Philo's 
thought. The influence of his mind is already felt in the 
Pauline literature. The political idea has vanished; the 
apocalyptic conception is gradually disappearing. It is the 
celestial, archetypal man, the medium of creation, revela- 
tion, and redemption, the image and effulgence of the in- 
effable glory, the Son of God in a Greek metaphysical sense, 
that dominates. In the Fourth Gospel the Logos of Philo 
has become flesh ; the Messiah is transformed into ' ' the only 
begotten Son ; ' n the pageant in the sky gives place to a mys- 
tic fellowship ; the resurrection is a spiritual experience. 

1 This reading in John i, 18, is found in Codex Alexandrinus, a 
number of late uncials, all cursive MSS. but one, the Latin versions, 
the Curetonian, the Philoxenian, the Palestinian Lectionary, the 
Georgian, the Armenian, the Slavic, the Anglo-Saxon, some MSS. of 
the Ethiopic and the Arabic, Athanasius, Chrysostom and the Latin 
fathers. It is without a rival in the Occident and practically so in 
the Orient until the fifth century, while it is known in Alexandria in 
the days of Origen. On the other hand, an important group of wit- 
nesses to the text give the reading ' only begotten God. ' Among these 
are Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Par- 
isianus 62, the cursive MS. 33, the Peshita, the margin of the Phil- 
oxenian, the Coptic, some MSS. of the Ethiopic and a host of patristic 
writers from Clement of Alexandria on, Arian as well as orthodox. 
Bousset may be right in thinking that all of these represent the same 
Egyptian text edited by Hesychius (Theologische Rundschau, October, 
1903, p. 436) and that in Egypt the original 'son' was corrected into 
'God.' Unfortunately this passage is lost in the Sinaitic Syriac. 
Modern editors and commentators are of divided counsel. The sug- 
gestion of Semler and Schultz that the text originally read simply 
'the only begotten' has not won any recognition. Tregelles, Hort, 
Westcott, a majority of English revisers, Harnack, B. Weiss, O. Holtz- 
mann and H. J. Holtzmann have argued in favor of the reading 



14 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

It was important that the Old Testament should be saved, 
and the historic continuity preserved. But the cost was 
great. The infallible authority of the Scriptures might be 
'strongly maintained. But a method that allows the inter- 
preter to read into the Bible the theistic speculations, the 
psychology and the ethics of Greek philosophy, shifts in re- 
ality the seat of authority. Ultimately it is no longer the 
thought of the Biblical writers that is to him authoritative, 
but the thought that he himself, with undoubted sincerity, 
has imported into the text. Under ecclesiastical pressure 
this thought may be the officially recognized system of doc- 
trine. Where a deeper religious experience loosens the hold 
of hierarchical power, and leads the thirsty soul to the foun- 
tains of living water in the Scriptures, it finds there pre- 
cisely what, on other grounds, it believes to be true. The 
highest authority of the mystic is his own inner conscious- 
ness. But this subjectivity is the eclipse of dogma. 

It was the transformation of the coming Messiah into a 
god that rendered the Christ cult possible. Without a com- 
plete apotheosis, the world would not have been won. It 
was nothing less than a god that the worshiping heart de- 
manded. The second person of the Trinity, the divine be- 
ing through whom the universe was made and the redemp- 
tion effected, met this need. The episode of his humanity, 
the earthly life of Jesus, sank into the background. It was 
but the temporary manifestation in the flesh of a divine 
personality to overcome the powers of evil. His battles 
with them became a spectacle. At sacred seasons the suf- 
ferings of the new deity were set forth dramatically, as had 
been those of Osiris, Tammuz and Dionysus in the past. 
Yet even in a god it is the human qualities that are most 
fascinating. The very cult led the worshipers back to a 
manhood that invited imitation. The more earnestly this 

'God. ' (See especially Hort, Two Dissertations, 1876, pp. 1-72). 
Alford, Teschendorf, Ezra Abbott, Scrivener, Schaff, Nestle, Bousset 
have accepted the reading 'only begotten son.' (See especially Ezra 
Abbott in Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1861, and Unitarian Review, 
June, 1875). 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 15 

was undertaken, the more real became the fellowship of his 
sufferings, the more marked was the return from the Christ 
of dogma to the Jesus of history. 

Among the independent movements of Christian thought 
that were finally suppressed, none, perhaps, was of greater 
importance than Gnosticism. Large were the contributions 
that the Gnostics made to the growing Catholic church. Al- 
ready the epistolary literature of the New Testament and 
the Fourth Gospel reveal the attraction and influence of 
Gnostic thought as well as an unmistakable attitude of hos- 
tility and fear. Some of the works of Gnostics on which the 
Church set its seal of approval were the selection of a canon 
of Christian Scriptures, the enriching of the cult by hymns, 
formulas and new sacraments, the establishment of a cate- 
chumenate, and the development of a philosophy of emana- 
tion. Many of the contentions of the Gnostics rejected by 
the Church were truer than the views it adopted. Men like 
Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion and Ptolemy were right in 
holding that there is a vast difference between the concep- 
tion of God in the Mosaic legislation and that presented by 
Jesus, that a god who fashions man out of clay, repents of 
his work, betrays ignorance, becomes angry, eats flesh, de- 
sires animal sacrifices, and fights for Israel against other 
nations, is more truly designated as "the god of the Jews" 
than as "the father of mankind." If, for want of such a 
training as the synagogue provided, these thinkers some- 
times failed to understand the Hebrew records, their own 
education fitted them to see more clearly than even the most 
radical Jewish Christian the moral and religious differences 
between the Law and the Gospel. It is possible that the loss 
of critical insight the Church sustained by adopting a less 
discriminating view of the Old Testament was made good 
by a greater freedom from moral excrescences. Although 
the denunciations in the Pastoral Epistles and the accounts 
in Irenaeus should no doubt be taken with considerable cau- 
tion, and such works as the Pistis Sophia, the Books of Yeu, 
and the hymns betray no laxity of morals, it is not improb- 
able that this movement, like the Pauline, had an incidental 



16 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

tendency to lead to lawlessness. But its eager search for 
knowledge and its spirit of independence, shown in numer- 
ous sects, precluded fixity of doctrine. 1 

What is true of the Gnostics, applies in many respects to 
all the dissenting bodies condemned as heretical. Their 
strength lay in a courageous protest against doctrinal stag- 
nation, and a demand for a deeper knowledge and a holier 
life, their weakness in an asceticism that could not be en- 
dured, a censorious and schismatic spirit, or an exaggerated 
independence. It is to be regretted that the doctrinal views 
of men like Theodotion, Noetus, Paul of Samosata, and Sa- 
bellius should be so imperfectly known. Whether Arian- 
ism, if unchecked, would have led to a monotheism like the 
Jewish or Muhammadan, with an Ebionitish Christology, or 
developed into a polytheism more marked than the practical 
tritheism of the Church, is a question not easily answered. 
It was a significant protest against the doctrine that was 
destined to win the palm of victory, and it forced a defini- 
tion of the ' ' three persons ' ' and the ' ' two natures ' ' bearing 
in itself the germs of destruction. 

It is a serious misfortune that the attacks upon Christian 
dogma by outsiders, such as Celsus and Porphyry, have 
come down to us only in fragments. What has been pre- 
served shows the truly scientific character of many of their 
arguments. How widely they won the approval of thought- 
ful men within the Church, we cannot know. But it is not 
likely that they would have caused such consternation among 
the apologists, had there been no signs of danger. The time 
had not arrived, however, for the acceptance of such critical 
results without jeopardizing more valuable possessions. 
The negative truths they perceived were of less importance 
than the positive convictions they combated. The Chris- 
tian system survived, not by virtue of the errors these phil- 
osophers pointed out, but because of the larger truths they 
failed to see. It was not expedient for the world to go back 

1 On the significance of the Gnostic movement and the history of its 
gradual recognition, see Excursus A. 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 17 

from the worship of Christ with what it held of future good 
to the gods of Hellas and Rome. 

The Middle Ages were not a period of the upbuilding of 
dogma. This product of the Greek spirit working with 
Jewish material was completed. But the creed-making con- 
tinued. Kelt and German and Slav, even though converted 
to Christianity, could only see the articles of faith through 
their own eyes. No baptismal water could wash away the 
thought of ages. Their Christ naturally bore many a fea- 
ture borrowed from Hesu, Balder, or Bogh. The most dili- 
gent and skilful indoctrination was not able to erase the in- 
fluence of foreign religious conceptions. From his heaven 
the new god must descend to fight his people's battles, as 
had the gods of their fathers. This Christ was as dif- 
ferent from the Eternal Son of the Symbolum Nicaenum, as 
were the metaphysicians presenting their subtle arguments 
for or against the homoousion in the streets of Alexandria 
from the rough and valiant knights going forth, sword in 
hand, to conquer lands and nations for their celestial king. 
The claims of his vicegerent on earth were in keeping with 
this martial spirit. 

Through this spirit the Christian nations were brought 
into conflict with another aggressive religion, and into con- 
tact with a civilization in some respects decidedly superior. 
From the great centres of Muslim learning at Toledo and 
Seville, Kairwan and Fostat, Baghdad and Damascus, 
streams of new intellectual life issued forth. Through vis- 
iting scholars and returning crusaders, through the court of 
Frederic II at Palermo, through the mediation of the Jews, 
Christian Europe became to some extent acquainted with a 
highly developed science of nature, a philosophy often 
wholly emancipated from the bondage of dogma, and a his- 
torical investigation clinging closely and critically to the 
facts. Perhaps the most important response to this enliv- 
ening touch was the philosophy of nominalism. It drew 
the mind away from the conception of universal terms as 
real, and bade it look upon reality as inherent in the things 
themselves. Classes and categories were declared to be mere 



18 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

abstractions of thought; the things that can be seen and 
made objects of study were proclaimed to be the realities. 
A heaven full of imaginary objects, types and patterns, was 
shattered; an earth full of unobserved individual things 
challenged attention. If this philosophy was in a degree 
the fruit of the scientific spirit engendered through Muslim 
influence, it became even more markedly the cause of the 
further development of science. For historical criticism 
the time had not yet come. The veiled efforts of Abraham 
ibn Ezra, the Jewish philosopher of Toledo, proved abortive. 

The danger to dogma from nominalism was only equalled 
by that threatening from mysticism. If Francis of Assisi, 
Tauler, the author of Theologia Germanica, and Thomas a 
Kempis still moved within the sphere of the accepted sys- 
tem, many of "the brethren of the common life" not only 
appealed, as Gerhard Groote had done, from patristic and 
scholastic authority to that of the Gospel itself, but went so 
far as to reject the doctrine of the Church on essential 
points, as in the case of the sacraments. The abandonment 
of external authority is the inevitable result of any deepen- 
ing of man's religious life. 

Erasmus and Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, all show the 
influence of mysticism and its tendency to undermine estab- 
lished doctrines. They indeed left untouched the Christ of 
the ecumenic creeds, and the authority of the Scriptures was 
made the formal principle of the reformation. But this 
formal principle was seriously affected by the material prin- 
ciple, justification by faith, which Luther applied as a stand- 
ard of canonicity ; and the great reformer, with his warm 
human heart, who dared to approach the divine without 
priestly mediation, found in his Christ a richer humanity. 
His noble independence has left in German soil a legacy of 
incalculable worth. Calvin, easily foremost among the re- 
formers as an exegete, accepted the Catholic Christology, 
but his more literal method of interpretation, his desire to 
put the legislation of the Bible to a practical test in polit- 
ical life, his lack of faith in salvation by sacramental magic, 
and his broad historic outlook from the view-point of eternal 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 19 

decrees blazoned the path of rational Bible study, historical 
criticism and social progress. 

The fullest development of these tendencies was reached 
in the Baptist churches. Here a conscious spiritual experi- 
ence, not a creed or a sacrament, was made the basis of fel- 
lowship. The supreme authority of the inner light was rec- 
ognized. Absolute liberty of conscience and non-interfer- 
ence by civil society in matters of religion were demanded, 
and the principle of voluntary association was maintained. 
How subversive of dogma this general attitude was, is well 
seen in the case of Johannes Denck, 1 one of the profoundest 
thinkers of the sixteenth century. He argued the greater 
authority of the inner light, the immediate vision of truth, 
from the fact that only a small part of the human race had 
any knowledge of the Scriptures; he believed in the final 
salvation of all men and freely proclaimed this conviction ; 
he rejected the piacular conception of Jesus' death and de- 
clared him to be a prophet. His views were widely adopted 
and he was held in highest esteem in all the churches. In 
1550 sixty delegates from about forty Baptist churches in 
Italy, Switzerland and Austria met in Venice to settle the 
question whether Christ were God or man. Thrice during 
the meeting the Lord's Supper was celebrated. After forty 
days of earnest discussion an almost unanimous decision 
was reached against the deity of Christ, against the reality 
of good and evil angels, against the immortality of the god- 
less and a place of future punishment, in favor of soul- 
sleeping, and against the propitiatory nature of Christ's 
suffering. 2 Others, like Balthasar Hubmaier, no doubt ad- 

1 Cf . especially Ludwig Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertaufer, 1882 j 
also Kichard Heath, Anaoaptism, 1895. 

2 See copies of the records of the Inquisition published by Comba, 
Bivista Christiana, 1885, and the accounts given by Benrath, Studien 
und Kritiken, 1885, p. 20, and by Comba, I nostri protestanti, 1897, 
II, 488 fit*. A popular account is given by Newman, A History of 
the Baptist Churches in the United States, 1894, p. 34 f , and a fuller 
statement in A History of Antipedooaptism, 1899. Unfortunately 
Newman does not quote his sources in a manner that makes it possible 
for the reader to verify his statements, and some of the most remark- 



20 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

hered more closely to traditional lines. But there was no 
dogma. Liberty prevailed. It produced a gentleness and 
dignity of language and demeanor that contrasted agree- 
ably with the vulgarity of speech and harshness of judg- 
ment that mar the memory of so many great men of the 
period. Nor can those who without a murmur suffered 
martyrdom at the stake or by drowning be charged with 
want of firm conviction. Affiliated with this radical move- 
ment were Michael Servetus, burned by Calvin for his views 
on the Trinity and infant baptism, and Andreas Bodenstein 
Carlstadt, the great literary critic. 

The mighty spiritual impulses of the reformation seem 
to have gradually spent their force. An apparently barren 
orthodoxism adorned itself with Luther's .name, without 
possessing the power of his faith ; an estimate of the Bible 
more fictitious than ever, and a new incrustation of dogma 
temporarily obscured the liberalizing tendencies of Calvin 's 
thought ; the abuse of liberty at Minister cast discredit on a 
fair name, and scattered the precious possessions once held 
together in the bond of peace among many sects. Yet the 
apparent retrogression was probably the only way of pre- 
venting the new type of religious life from flowing back into 
the channels of the re-invigorated rather than thoroughly 
reformed Catholic church, and of gathering ethical vigor 
for future advances. 

A vantage-ground for critical work was discovered in the 
mother-church in her recognition of a sifting process 
through a long succession of living authorities. AVhere 
Rome had not yet spoken, critics might speak. The author- 
ity of the Church, while never at variance with the true sense 
of the Scriptures, was above every human interpretation of 
them; and they might be freely examined so long as her 
authority was not infringed. Thus members of the Society 
of Jesus, like Bento Pereira and Jacques Bonfrere, felt free 
to suggest post-Mosaic material in the Pentateuch: and 
fathers of the Oratorio in Paris, like Jean Morin, Richard 

able facts showing the critical insight of the Italian Baptists are en- 
tirely overshadowed or omitted. 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 21 

Simon and Charles Francois Houbigant, went far in ad- 
vance of Protestant scholars in textual and literary criti- 
cism. How circumscribed the freedom of even eminent 
scholars in the Reformed church was in the beginning of 
the seventeenth century, the history of Johannes Piscator 
(Fischer) shows. The often remarkably sane exegesis of 
the Herborn Bible found toleration only in Nassau, where 
heretics in mathematics, physics and astronomy also were 
safe. 

A new conception of the universe, of incalculable signifi- 
cance for the destiny of dogma, developed through the dis- 
coveries of Copernicus, Brahe, Bruno, Galileo, Huyghens 
and Newton. In England the new science found its most 
generous welcome and exercised its widest influence. Its 
bearing on theology became manifest in the works of 
Thomas Hobbes and of the deists. Among these Charles 
Blount, John Toland and Anthony Collins probably did the 
greatest service. Blount pointed out the inconsistency of 
the Biblical cosmogony with the Copernican theory ; Toland 
called attention to the radical differences of thought in the 
apostolic church; Collins proved the Maccabaean origin of 
the book of Daniel, and searchingly examined the supposed 
Messianic prophecies. A curious instance of how a new 
view of the world may be read into the Bible by the alle- 
gorical method to the utter extinction of dogma was pre- 
sented by Thomas Woolston. The real merits of these Eng- 
lish thinkers should not be denied. A fatal inability to ex- 
plain the growth and maintenance of the Christian system 
except by priestcraft and deception, and a consequent acer- 
bity of temper, degenerating into cynicism in Bolingbroke, 
constituted their greatest weakness, and limited their capac- 
ity to gain permanent recognition for the truths they so 
clearly perceived. On the other hand, its very freedom 
from the characteristics of deistic warfare and its profund- 
ity of thought prevented for some time David Hume 's 1 con- 
tribution to religious thought from receiving an attention 
commensurate with its intrinsic importance. Meanwhile the 

1 The Natural History of Beligion, 1757. 



22 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

leaven of mysticism was at work. The Baptist churches in 
Poland were quietist and Unitarian. When they were 
driven out, they found refuge in Holland and in England. 
They helped to create the atmosphere in which Arminianism 
grew up. They contributed largely to the Socinian, Uni- 
tarian and Universalist movements, and paved the way for 
Quakerism. The latter was perhaps the most potent spirit- 
ual force of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 
While the quietism of Jean de Labadie, Anna Maria van 
Schurmann, Madame de Guyon and Fenelon, and the piet- 
ism of Spener, Francke, Dippel, Edelmann and Zinzendorf, 
may ultimately have had an independent origin, not due to 
the missionary zeal of the Quaker, the impact of the Eng- 
lish movement is plainly visible, and its effect on the Anglo- 
Saxon world was very great. 1 It was largely through the 
faith and patience of her Quaker saints that England 
learned the principle of religious toleration ; it was William 
Penn, the Quaker, and Roger Williams, the Baptist, who es- 
tablished in America a still broader religious liberty. 

Deism and pietism alike tended to undermine the dog- 
matic structure. Jean Leclerc, already affected by Spi- 
noza's Tractatus Rcligio-poUticus (1670), came under the 
influence of Newton, Locke and Collins, and left an impres- 
sion upon the susceptible remonstrant body too deep to be 
removed by tardy caution. In the TVolfcnbiittlcr Frag- 
mcnte, published anonymously by Lessing, after the author's 
death, in 1774 and 1777, Hermann Samuel Reimarus, a man 
of vast erudition and keen insight, but somewhat lacking in 
delicacy and vital religious interest, revealed the influence of 

*Cf. Bruno Bauer, Einfluss dcs englischcn Quakerthuins auf die 
deutsche Cultur, 1878. This exceedingly thoughtful work suffers 
somewhat from a too violent reaction against the narrow sectarianism 
that twenty-five years ago characterized most church historians, 
whether their sect was large or small. If at times he exaggerates the 
influence of individual mystics, his estimate of pietism is in the main 
as just as it is generous. It was particularly needful at a time when 
theological thought began to be dominated by Eitschl, who had no 
eye but for the eccentricities of mysticism, and so signally failed 
to appreciate its ethical and religious value. 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 23 

the English school. Poets like Lessing, Herder and Goethe, 
and philosophers like Wolf and Kant also contributed pow- 
erfully to the broadening of the religious outlook. In 
France, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and others expounded 
the tenets of deism. Voltaire, who knew most intimately 
English life and thought, unfortunately copied some of the 
most objectionable features of the deistic polemics. His 
famous phrase, Ecrasez I'infame! was indeed not hurled 
against Christ, but against the Catholic church, and it may 
even appear mild in comparison with the intemperate lan- 
guage in which Protestant theologians were wont to indulge 
when speaking of this church. But there seems at times to 
be a malice in his satire and a lack of fairness in his judg- 
ment that could not but affect his own vision, and prevent 
men from accepting even the truth he offered. A deeper 
earnestness and a loftier purpose, though with serious de- 
fects, characterized Thomas Paine, whose "Age of Reason" 
did so much, on both sides of the Atlantic, to destroy the 
foundations of dogma. 

More or less consciously pietism marched to the same goal. 
When ' ' The Lord has revealed this to me, " or "It seems to 
me," takes the place of "It is written," rationalism is un- 
avoidable. How shall a man determine, whether a convic- 
tion in his mind is the authoritative utterance within him 
of a spirit not himself, or a subjective judgment reached by 
processes of ratiocination ? When truth is no longer meas- 
ured by external standards, how can reason be prevented 
from ultimately proclaiming its supreme authority? The 
transition may be watched in Nicolas Zinzendorf, in Carl 
Friedrich Bardt, in Johann Salomo Semler, "the father of 
criticism, ' ' in Johann David Michaelis. The rationalism of 
H. E. G. Paulus still hesitated to touch traditional views 
concerning authorship or to resort to mythology; it was a 
consistent, and therefore onesided and mistaken, effort to 
explain all miracles as based on actual occurrences. 1 His 

x The greatest weakness of the rationalistic school was its lack of his- 
toric sense. It wanted to find its own ideas in the Bible. Historic 
objectivity is an easier virtue to-day, however, than a hundred years 



24 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

pupil, W. M. L. De Wette, who applied both literary criti- 
cism and a mythical theory to the Old Testament, yearned to 
harmonize a living faith with a scientific method. 1 Schleier- 
macher drew from Herrnhut his warm piety, his conviction 
that "it is the heart that makes the theologian, ' ' his inclina- 
tion to pour the new wine into the old bottles, and his recog- 
nition of the rights of criticism. Similarly a deep mysti- 
cism, an immense wealth of ideas, and a luminous haze of lan- 
guage characterized Hegel. To this trio of Berlin teachers 
the emancipation of religious thought in Germany is largely 
due. Among their disciples were C. P. W. Gramberg, Wit- 
helm Vatke and J. F. L. George, who first drew the outlines 
of the now generally accepted course of Israel's religious 
development; David Friedrich Strauss, whose epoch-mak- 
ing work 2 recognized the unhistorical character of the 
Fourth Gospel and the mythical element in the New Testa- 
ment; Ferdinand Christian Baur, who discerned the con- 
flict between Jewish and Pauline Christianity and the his- 
torical background in the second century for a large part 
of the Pauline literature ; and Bruno Bauer, who sought to 
establish a relation of the entire Pauline literature to Rome 
analogous to that of the Johannine literature to Alexandria. 
In the Hegelian philosophy the principle of development 
according to ascertainable laws was enunciated. But the 
laws as yet most clearly recognized by natural science were 
those of mechanics. Their application to the movements 

ago; and the ordinary treatment of rationalism itself shows that it is 
by no means too abundant. Hermann Muller's articles Zur TViirdi- 
gung des Bationalismus in Protcstantische Monatshefte, July and 
August, 1901, are encouraging. 

1 The influence of Eichhorn and De Wette was felt even in America, 
where George E. Noyes published a critical essay on the Messianic 
prophecies in 1834. John G. Palfrey wrote some excellent "' Lectures 
on Jewish History and Antiquities" in 1840. Theodore Parker trans- 
lated and annotated De Wette 's Introduction to the Old Testament 
in 1840, and Ealph Waldo Emerson, in his famous address to the Har- 
vard Divinity School in 1S38 and through his later essays, presented 
the best thought of the period. 

2 Das Leben Jesu, 1835. 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 25 

of life in human society, however justifiable, could not at 
first escape a certain crudeness and avoid leaving the im- 
pression of artificiality. The day was fast approaching 
when the laws of evolution in the realm of organic life 
should be more distinctly 1 seen and formulated by Darwin, 
Huxley, Haeckel and Spencer, and the discovery fertilize 
every field of human research. But before it came a reac- 
tion set in. The results must be tested. Not only apolo- 
gists for traditional views, but also firm believers in literary 
and historical criticism, addressed themselves to the task. 
The vigorous and uncompromising defense of tradition by 
Hengstenberg, Havernick and Keil was not without effect, 
and the conservatism of Neander, the subtle and allegoriz- 
ing exegesis of J. C. K. Hofmann, and the mystical inter- 
pretation of J. T. Beck exercised a wide influence. More 
important, however, was the rejection of many positions 
held by De Wette, Gramberg, George, Vatke and Reuss on 
the one hand, and Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Strauss and 
Bruno Bauer on the other, by men who were their peers in 
independence of thought as well as in learning. Heinrich 
Ewald, a disciple of Eichhorn, but his superior as an Orient- 
alist, and gifted with a finer poetic appreciation, protested 
against the submergence of personality in the struggle of 
forces and tendencies. He restored the order of "the Law 
and the Prophets, ' ' and threw back the Fourth Gospel into 
the apostolic age. August Dillmann, great as a philologist 

1 Buffon, in his Eistoire naturelle, 1749-1804, had thrown out im- 
portant suggestions, and Lamarck, in his Philosophie zoologique, 1809. 
had already formulated one of the most important laws of evolution. 
It is interesting to observe that in the same year a pastor in Dobbeln 
in Brunswick, G. Ballenstedt, published in Henke's Museum fur Ee- 
ligionswissenscliaft, 1809, p. 570 ft', an article entitled Umriss einer 
auf Thatsachen und Naturgcsetze sich griindenden Geogonie, in which, 
following Spallanzani and Blumenbach, he not only affirmed a belief 
in spontaneous generation, but laid down a remarkable system of or- 
derly development of life on the planet. Among the earlier forerun- 
ners none was greater than Lamarck. Herbert Spencer in some re- 
spects anticipated Darwin, but Darwin's Origin of Species, 1859, was 
epoch-making. 



THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 



conscientious as an interpreter, continued the protest, in 
new surroundings, suspicious of " an evolution along straight 
lines," though yielding point after point to love of truth, 
and even Theodor Noldeke, the most eminent Semitic 
scholar of the century, and an acute literary critic, main- 
tained for some time, against Graf and Kuenen, the pre-ex- 
ilic origin of the priestly legislation. Karl Hase leaned 
again, though somewhat doubtfully, on the Fourth Gospel 
as a historic source, and C. H. Weisse found it necessary 
to assume at least a post-mortem appearance of the spirit of 
Jesus to account for the doctrine of the resurrection. Such 
masters of New Testament exegesis as Theodor Keim, 1 Carl 
Weizsacker, J. H. Scholten, Adolf Hilgenfeld, Otto Pfleid- 
erer and Heinrich Holtzmann adhered indeed faithfully to 
all that was essential in the position of the Tubingen school. 
But on literary questions they surrendered many of the con- 
tentions of Baur, and opposed some of the characteristic 
views of Strauss and Bruno Bauer. Not seldom their devi- 
ations from Baur marked decided steps forward, as when 
some of them discarded the Johannine authorship of the 
Apocalypse. Yet this rejection of a chief corner-stone of 
the Tubingen structure appeared to these scholars them- 
selves and others less significant than the fact that they 
deemed it possible to assign to Paul three or four more 
epistles than Baur had been able to do. The differences on 
details of criticism between the school of Ewald and the 
school of De AYette, between the present survivors and the 
founders of the Tubingen school, were of little moment in 
comparison with the underlying unity of method, mental 
attitude and even results. But the impression of a reaction 
was important, as it tended to increase confidence in the 
carefulness and integrity of Biblical scholarship and to cre- 
ate a more generous hospitality to critical study among the- 
ologians in different lands. 2 

1 Keim , s GeschicJite Jesu von Nacara, 1S67, is perhaps the most 
learned Life of Jesus that has been published. It is written in an 
admirable spirit. 

2 TVhile the influence of the "rationalists" and De Wette scarcely 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 27 

A significant movement, also heralded as a sign of reac- 
tion, proceeded from Albrecht Kitschl. Kitschl was funda- 
mentally opposed to mysticism, sought to eliminate philos- 
ophy from religion (though not without the aid of Neo- 
Kantianism), pointed to the objective revelation of God in 
Christ, and insisted upon a practical transformation of in- 
dividual and social life by Christian ethics. He brought 
James, I Peter, I John, Hebrews and Luke 1 back to the begin- 
nings of Christian literature, caused an Essene Ebionitism 
to spring up after the fall of Jerusalem, and fixed a great 
gulf between Paul and the Gentile Christianity of the sec- 
ond century degraded by Greek philosophy. His system 
was chiefly elaborated by Herrmann ; his criticism was par- 
ticularly carried on by Harnack. The strength of Herr- 
mann's contention for a Christo-centric theology lay in the 
feeling that a human ideal is the greatest need of the wor- 
shiper ; its weakness, in the uncertainty concerning the ac- 
tual life of Jesus and the ideal which it suggests, when his- 
torical criticism is admitted. Harnack, with admirable 
mastery of the material, examined the external evidence of 
the New Testament literature, rejoiced in the slender threads 
by which it seemed possible to hang it to its traditional au- 
thorship, made less confident use of internal criteria, and 

affected any theologians in England and America except the Unitari- 
ans, that of Ewald extended to teachers of theology and representa- 
tive exegetes in the most conservative Protestant denominations. It 
is sufficient to refer to Samuel Davidson, J. W. Colenso, Rowland 
Williams, Robertson Smith and T. K. Cheyne in England, Augustus 
Briggs and C. H. Toy in America. An influential writer closely in 
touch with German scholarship, yet independent, was W. R. Cassels, 
the long anonymous author of "Supernatural Religion." The im- 
press of German thought may also be traced to some extent in the 
Scandinavian countries. But more frequently the reaction against 
dogma led men of genius into lonely paths. This independence may 
be seen in Lindgren's and Myrberg's treatment of the Old Testament, 
in Viktor Rydberg's Biblical criticism, in Bostrom's idealistic ration- 
alism, in Pontus Wikner's realistic mysticism, and in Soren Kirke- 
gaard's liberalism. 

1 Cf . Die Christliche Lehre von der Bechtfertigung und Versohnung, 
1882, II, p. 320. 



28 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH 

earnestly endeavored to clear up such important matters as 
the early history of Gnosticism and the origin of the mon- 
archical episcopate. His desire to vindicate the earliest 
possible date for the New Testament books is so manifest 
that his conclusions become, on this account, all the more 
significant. The "eye-witnesses," James and John, Peter 
and Jude, are once more deported into ' ' second century ex- 
ile;" interpolations on a large scale are assumed to save 
fragments of Pauline letters; the unhistorical character of 
the Fourth Gospel is fully recognized; and the story of 
Jesus, from virgin birth to resurrection and ascension, is 
emptied of its miraculous content. Harnack is quite as far 
removed from the theology of the ecumenic creeds as was 
Baur. The differences between the two critics concern 
matters of wholly subordinate interest. The "reaction" 
could not effect the rehabilitation of dogma. 

In the meantime, the evolutionary hypothesis had won its 
way into every branch of science. If the successive strata 
of the earth's crust furnished external testimony to the rel- 
ative age of their fossil inclusions, the discovered genetic 
relations of palaeontological forms supplied internal evi- 
dence as to their place in the chain of development. If, in 
the vastly increasing archaeological and documentary ma- 
terial, landmarks of priceless value were here and there set 
up by actual dates, the historian learned for the most part 
to determine chronological position by relying on the ob- 
served tendencies of life and thought. In the light of palae- 
ontological research, it became impossible for liberally edu- 
cated men to believe in the Biblical account of man 's origin 
and nature. "When the principles of criticism that had 
gained ascendency in other realms of historic investigation 
were applied to the Old Testament, the traditional author- 
ship of its books, the accepted course of Israelitish hist 
Messianic prophecy, in any strict sense, and typology dis- 
appeared. Many of the conclusions reached on the basis of 
Hegelian philosophy found their triumphant vindication. 
This was not merely due to the genius and learning of such 
men as Kuenen and Wellhausen, Stade and Duhm, Robert- 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 29 

son Smith and Cheyne. Their results were gained and won 
general acceptance, because the spirit of the new time de- 
manded a rational explanation of Israel's life on the theory 
of evolution that had opened so many other doors. It was 
found that the philosophy of evolution did not ignore the 
element of personality. In fact, the prophets, legislators, 
chroniclers, sages and apocalyptic seers of Israel had never 
before been such living and essential factors of history. The 
superstition was dispelled that, in order to appreciate an 
author's worth, it is necessary to know his name. The 
merging of the personality of Hebrew patriarchs in Hebrew 
tribes bearing their names was more than compensated by 
the light thrown on a thousand years of growth in Palestine. 
The eclipse of the miracle rendered it possible to discover 
the dominancy of ethical forces. And the new estimate was 
introduced without serious injury to the religious sentiment. 
It is a significant indication of the religious vitality of the 
Church that in a measure she was able to adjust herself to 
a conception of Israel's life that demolished the very foun- 
dations of Christological dogma. The religious sense, as 
well as the scientific consciousness, found a deeper satisfac- 
tion in the new view than the old could afford. 

But the movement could not stop at the Old Testament. 
Under its influence Ernest Renan, the great Orientalist, 
wrote his Life of Jesus. 1 This work suffers from an in- 
discriminate use and an insufficient critique of the sources, 
and it draws too freely upon a rich and artistic imagina- 
tion. But its fundamental attitude is that of Strauss, and 
it adds a new emphasis on the physical environment and an 
earnest attempt to trace the complication and denouement 
of the tragedy of Jesus' life. The tragic element was nat- 
urally discovered in his Messianic consciousness. How, 
without infringement upon his humanity, this conscious- 
ness could originate and grow within him, was persuasively 
described by Baldensperger. 2 Fed by apocalyptic litera- 
ture a Messianic hope of a highly spiritual type had devel- 

1 Vie clc Jesus, 1863. 

'Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 2 1892. 



30 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

oped in the circles whence Jesus came forth. This position 
is still maintained in the most modern treatment of the life 
of Jesus. The admirable work of Albert Reville, 1 coming 
from a milieu than which none can be more conducive to 
truly scientific study of religious phenomena, is sympathetic 
in spirit, accurate in method, and adequate in critical appa- 
ratus. But unverifiable and improbable assumptions re- 
main. In spite of the abundant labors of Hilgenfeld, Volk- 
mar, Dillmann and Charles, the most vital questions in apoc- 
alyptic literature are still sub judice; and there is not a 
tittle of evidence that such a conception of the Messiah as 
the composite Parables of Enoch present was known to 
Jesus. That ' ' son of man ' ' was a Messianic title, and that 
Jesus used it as such a designation of himself, can no longer 
be maintained. When the recorded sayings of Jesus are 
translated back into his own Galilean dialect of the Ara- 
maic, as they must be, the impossibility of both of these as- 
sumptions becomes evident. But with them goes the only 
ground on which it can be supposed that Jesus regarded 
himself as the Messiah. An earlier strand of apostolic 
tradition, as Lagarde discerned, still preserves the memory 
of a prophetic career averse to Messianic pretensions. The 
investigations of the phrase "son of man" by Eerdmans, 
Schmidt, Meyer, Lietzmann and AVellhausen, the searching 
examination of the passion week by Brandt,- and the inci- 
sive study of the secret of the Messiahship by AYrede 3 have 
tended to remove the last remnant of the traditional con- 
ception. 

But the scientific instrument itself by which this change 
has been effected prevents the dissolution of the personality 
of Jesus into a symbol and a name, and points the ci 
making tendency into new paths. Nothing can more con- 
vincingly prove that Christianity ultimately owes its origin 
to a living Galilean prophet than the preservation in the 
written records of a tradition radically at variance with the 

1 Jesus de Nazareth, 1897. 

2 Die Evangclische Gesehichte, 1S93. 

3 Das Mcssiasgcheimnis in den Evangelien, 1901. 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 31 

estimate held by the authors of these biographies. This tra- 
dition cannot have been invented. Every motive for such 
a creation is wanting. It can only be the reflection of his- 
toric fact. Its persistence in Palestine explains the silence 
of Philo and Josephus. When Philo died, Hellenistic 
Christianity had not yet risen above the horizon. When 
toward the end of the first century Josephus wrote his An- 
tiquities, the distinction between those Aramaic speaking 
Jews who looked for the return of Jesus as the Messiah and 
those who expected the coming of a Son of David, preserved 
in heaven for the time appointed, was not sufficiently 
marked to warrant a special mention of the former as a 
party or a philosophical school. The precious seed lay 
buried in the ground longer than has been supposed, imper- 
ceptible to eyes surveying only the salient features of Jew- 
ish life. Ritschl rightly felt that between the death of 
Jesus and the Pauline literature there was a period in which 
a less advanced type of doctrine, a somewhat modified Juda- 
ism, was proclaimed by the immediate disciples. 1 He erred, 
however, when he looked for this teaching to the epistles 
ascribed by tradition to the apostles, just as the Tubingen 
school was mistaken in making the Apocalypse a representa- 
tive of this primitive Christianity. As yet we possess no 
literary document from the immediate disciples of Jesus 
bearing testimony to their faith. Whether any of them 
ever wrote a line, or the earth still holds any fragment of 
the first written Aramaic record, the future may reveal. 
Meanwhile we cannot be sufficiently grateful for the possi- 
bility of disentangling an early and reliable tradition by 
means of literary and historical criticism of the Greek gos- 
pels and a translation of the sayings ascribed to Jesus into 
the language which he spoke. 

The very facts that most unmistakably show the historical 
character of Jesus, are at the same time precious indications 
of his distinctive spirit and peculiar genius. They furnish 
the basis for constructive work. By a judicious sifting of 

1 Die Christliche Lehre von der Bechtfertigung und Fersohnung, II, 
1882, p. 320. 



THE PEOPHET OF XAZAEETH 



the material on the vantage-ground thus gained, and a care- 
ful testing of each logion in the closest possible restoration 
of its original Aramaic form, the general trend at least of 
the teaching of Jesus may be ascertained. In separating 
later accretions, not only the influence of the intellectual 
environment but also the reaction against it of a mighty per- 
sonality, not only the organizing principles on which the 
emphasis falls but also the unassimilated survivals of older 
conceptions, must be considered. Otto Schmoller, Johannes 
Weiss and AYilhelm Bousset have well maintained that the 
kingdom of heaven must have been even to Jesus an eschato- 
logical idea: the prophet's eyes are always turned toward 
the future. But if the coming kingdom was conceived by 
him as a social order whose laws were of permanent validity, 
he may have regarded it as present wherever those laws 
were observed, and his ethics cannot be interpreted as merely 
provisional in view of an impending catastrophe. It 
most delicate task to determine Jesus' attitude on social 
questions. The temptation is very st i >ver with his 

authority one or another view in economic science. But it 
is more honest to differ than to force the interpretation. 
If a man believes that retaliation, warfare, usury, inordi- 
nate wealth, oath-taking and divorce are essential to the 
maintenance of civil society, he may see in some real or im- 
aginary inconsistencies a support for his own philosophy, 
but he must not on this ground obscure or obliterate the 
fundamental opposition of Jesus to these things. Let him 
express his dissent, as Kenan and Reville have done in re- 
gard to wealth. If, from a democratic standpoint, such and 
similar positions may appear of necessity to imply a social- 
istic programme, it is not justifiable to assume that the far- 
reaching principle of service taking the place of authority 
must have been thought out in all its political and economic 
bearings, and to throw doubt upon the famous "Render 
unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." In view of the pre- 
suppositions of the time, the rugged honesty of Albert 
Dulk V criticism of Jesus for his ambition to become a king 
1 Dcr Irrgang dcs Lebcns Jcsu. 1> 



THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 33 

makes a more favorable impression than the defense by A. 
Matthes, 1 from substantially the same point of view, of his 
shrewdness in taking advantage of a position ' ' in the centre 
of the world 's history. ' ' It should be recognized that Jesus 
was not cognizant of the conditions of modern life, with its 
peculiar problems, its larger experience and observation, 
its social theories, and its methods of testing them. Yet 
there can be no question that the toiling masses of mankind, 
seeking a more equitable distribution of the wealth drawn 
from nature 's bounties and produced by common labor, and 
a mode of existence more in harmony with the dignity of 
manhood, are quite right in feeling that by the substitution 
of the Jesus of history for the celestial King of dogma, they 
have won a friend whose teaching, life, and death will ever 
be an inspiration in the struggle for justice and for mercy. 
Jesus looked forward to the kingdom of heaven. He also 
looked upward to the Father in heaven. This conception 
was not new. But he gave it a majesty and a tenderness 
never approached before. His thought of God manifestly 
came from a rich inner experience, a deep and holy mysti- 
cism. Not from books or teachers, but from immediate con- 
templation of reality, did he gain his marvelous assurance. 
As he reflected on the infinite goodness of the divine Being, 
he realized that neither he, nor any other man, could be 
called good. But he seems to have had no morbid sense of 
sin. His consciousness of imperfection was swallowed up 
in the sense of divine love. He looked into the Father's 
face, and they were one forever. With a conscience void of 
offense, he whispered Abba! and leaned with childlike con- 
fidence, obedience and joy upon the Unseen Arm. This at- 
titude toward the infinite mystery in which our human life 
is imbedded is religion pure and undefiled. This is eternal 
life. To whom should we go to hear words instinct with this 
life but to the Prophet of Nazareth ? The Christ of dogma 

1 Das Urbild Christi, 1897, p. 260 f . This is a thoughtful and sug- 
gestive work, written from an independent standpoint in a reverent 
spirit, and should not be passed by because of its somewhat artificial 
arrangement. 
3 



34 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

had much to give. "Of his fulness we all received, and 
grace for grace. ' ' But this he could not give. For he was 
,not true man. Therefore dogma must pass away, setting 
the scientific instinct free to search for the historic reality, 
and leaving the moral and religious impulses to find a new 
ideal in the life of Jesus. 1 

1 This passing of Christological dogma is but an incident in the 
process of evolution by which a more adequate estimate of the uni- 
verse has been formed and takes the place of the corruption prevalent 
among the civilized nations of antiquity. The conflict between the 
old view of the world and the new has been described, with amplest 
knowledge, by Andrew D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science 
with Theology in Christendom, 1896, 



CHAPTER III 
THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 

The chief contributions of the Old Testament to the de- 
veloping Christology of the Church were the Messianic 
prophecies and types discovered in its various books by late 
Jewish and Christian exegesis. This exegesis was inti- 
mately connected with, and largely rested upon, a peculiar 
conception of the world, of man's origin, nature and des- 
tiny, and of his fall and redemption. The universe was re- 
garded as having been brought into existence through the 
fiat of a supra-mundane divinity. The first man was sup- 
posed to have been fashioned from clay by the hands of the 
deity, and the first woman to have been made of a rib taken 
from man. By their disobedience this couple was thought 
to have made the whole race subject to death, brought all 
their descendants into the power of the devil, and plunged 
them into the everlasting torments of hell. Such a com- 
plete ruin of a being made in the image of God was consid- 
ered as having occasioned a divine scheme of salvation. As 
the utter helplessness of man's condition and the need of re- 
demption could only become apparent in the course of his 
history, his depravity was allowed to increase until "the 
fulness of time, ' * when the Saviour should appear. Mean- 
while, however, the divine plan— so it was thought— had 
been gradually revealed to men, partly through the sure 
prophetic word, shining as a lamp in a dark place, partly 
through a series of divinely ordained types pointing to the 
coming Redeemer and his reign on earth. 

According to this interpretation of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures, Messianic prophecy furnished also a present means 
of salvation to those who did not live to experience its fulfil- 
ment, but, seeing it from afar, believed and were justified 

35 



36 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

by faith. Since without a knowledge of Christ man must 
utterly perish, this knowledge was thus mercifully supplied 
•from the very beginning, and grew more plentiful from age 
to age. Like a golden thread, the story of Jesus Christ was 
supposed to run through every book of the Hebrew Bible, 
his life and death, his teaching and miracles, his resurrec- 
tion and return to earth being indicated so plainly that only 
an obdurate heart, a blind unbelief and a dull understand- 
ing could fail to recognize even the details of the marvelous 
picture, while good men in every generation were brought 
through it to a living faith in Christ, and the apostles were 
enabled to find the Messiah when he finally appeared. 

In a similar manner, it was supposed that a system of re- 
ligious facts, experiences and practices had been gradually 
introduced, whose sole value lay in its esoteric meaning, its 
suggestion of things to come. The law of Moses was con- 
ceived of as a school-master leading men to Christ. Sur- 
rounded on all sides by adumbrations of the great reality to 
come, a member of the chosen people might, it was thought, 
by looking at the type, divine the antitype, and approaching 
in the right spirit the divinely appointed sign, draw near 
to the infinite grace itself and receive spiritual life. AVhile 
it was felt by some Christian interpreters that the divine 
choice of a certain object or fact as a type could not be abso- 
lutely manifest until an inspired writer in the New Testa- 
ment proclaimed its typical significance, it was generally 
held that the same spirit which revealed to the apostles what 
were the true types of Christ had already opened the eyes 
of many who were looking for the consolation of Israel to 
the hidden meaning of the ordinances of God. 

The substance of Messianic prophecy, as understood by 
orthodox theologians, may be briefly summed up as follows : 
Ere yet man's disobedience and the fall had closed to him 
the gates of paradise, the protevangel was proclaimed by 
God himself. In the curse upon the devil, he gave the bless- 
ed promise that woman's seed, that is the Christ, would 
crush the serpent's head, destroy the power of Satan. 1 

1 Gen., iii, 15. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 37 

When Noah, disgraced by his son Ham, pronounced his 
curse upon Canaan, he united with it a promise that Japhet 
should dwell in the tents of Shem, thus predicting the time 
when the Gentiles should become fellow-heirs with Israel of 
the Messianic blessings. 1 Having left Ur of the Chaldees 
to go he knew not whither in obedience to God's command, 
Abraham received the assurance that in his seed, that is, the 
Christ, all nations should be blessed. 2 This pledge was re- 
newed to Isaac and to Jacob. Before he passed away, 
Jacob, leaning on his staff, prophesied that the scepter 
should not turn from between the feet of Judah till Shiloh, 
that is the Messiah, should come. 3 Hired by Balak, king of 
Moab, to curse Israel, Balaam was forced in spirit to bless, 
and to foretell the rising out of Jacob of the bright and 
morning star, the Christ. 4 Having given his people the 
Law on Sinai, and led it to the border of the promised land, 
Moses predicted that the Lord should raise up from 
among his brethren a prophet like unto himself, thus indi- 
cating Christ's prophetic office. 6 Job, the patriarch, fore- 
saw him as the Redeemer who, on the last day, would raise 
his suffering saint from the dead. In Zion, King David 
sang many a hymn concerning his greater Son and Lord. 
He predicted his anointment as King, his divine generation, 
and his universal reign, 7 his humiliation as a man inferior 
to the angels, 8 his resurrection, 9 his divine strength, 10 his 
cry of God-forsakenness on the cross and his many suffer- 
ings, 11 his triumphant entrance into the heavenly sanctu- 
ary, 12 his voluntary assumption of human nature to offer a 
sacrifice better than that of bulls and calves, 13 his betrayal 
by Judas Iscariot, 14 his divinity and his eternal reign, 15 his 
ascension, 16 his seating himself on the right hand of the 
Father, 17 his rejection by the elders of his people. 18 Solo- 
mon, in Ps., lxxii, spoke of his celestial reign; in Prov., 

1 Gen., ix, 27. 2 Gen., xvii, 3. » Gen., xlix, 10. * Num., xxiv, 17. 

*Deut., xviii, 15; 8 xix, 25. 7 Fs., ii. » Fs., viii. • Fs., xvi. 10 Ps., 

xxi. u Fs., xxii. u Fs. xxiv. ■ Fs., xl. 14 Fs., xli. » Fs., xlv. 19 Fs., 
lxviii. " Fs., ex. M Fs., cxviii. 



38 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

viii, 22 ff., of his eternal creation; in Canticles at great 
length of the intimate union of Christ and his Church. 
» These announcements of the coming Messiah were con- 
tinued by a long line of prophets. Hosea predicted the re- 
turn of the Son of God from Egypt 1 and his resurrection 
on the third day. 2 Joel foretold the pentecostal outpour- 
ing of his Spirit upon all flesh. 3 Obadiah announced the 
coming of a Saviour upon Mount Zion. 4 Jonah, through 
his marvelous deliverance from the belly of the fish, fore- 
tokened the resurrection of Christ on the third day. Micah 
predicted the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem Ephrathah. 5 
Isaiah predicted the Christian dispensation and its exten- 
sion from Jerusalem, 6 the virgin birth, 7 the light that should 
appear in Galilee, 8 the birth of the child whose name would 
be " Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eter- 
nity, Prince of Peace, ' ' of whose kingdom there should be no 
end, 9 the coming of "the shoot of the stock of Jesse and the 
branch out of its roots," 10 the forerunner crying in the wil- 
derness, 11 the suffering Servant of the Lord, offering an 
atoning sacrifice for many and risinir from the dead to see 
of the travail of his soul and be satisfied, 12 the deliverer 
that should come to Zion and turn away transgression from 
Jacob, 13 and the Anointed One who, endowed with the 
Spirit, should perform miracles and proclaim good tidings 
to the poor. 14 Jeremiah described him as "the Branch" 15 
and "the Lord, our righteousness," 16 foretold the mourning 
over the massacred infants at Bethlehem, 17 the miraculous 
conception 18 and the new covenant. 19 Ezekiel prophesied 
the new covenant, 20 the coming of a descendant of David, 21 
the appearance of "one to whom the right belongs," 22 the 
reign of the greater David. 23 Daniel not only foretold the 
death of the Messiah, 24 but also his coming on the clouds of 
heaven. 25 Haggai referred to him as "the desire of all na- 

*xi, 1. z vi, 2. 3 iii, 1. 4 vs. IS. 8 t, 1, 2. • ii, Iff. T vii, 14. 
•viii, 23. 'ix, 5 ff . 10 xi, Iff. u xl, 3. u lii, 13-liii, 12. " lix 
"lxi, Iff. "xxiii, 5; xxxiii, 15. "xxiii, 6. 17 xxxi, 15. ■ xxx 
"xxxi, 31. w xi, 19. a xvii, 22 ff. =xxi, 32. = xxxiv, 23, 24; xxxvii, 
^vii, 13. 



u xxxi, 31. »xi, 19. 
24 ff. "ix, 24-27. »< 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 39 

tions." 1 Zechariah spoke of him as "the Branch" that 
should be crowned, 2 the king entering Zion on an ass 's colt, 3 
the good shepherd who should be betrayed for thirty shekels 
of silver, 4 and smitten of God. 5 Finally, Malachi predicted 
the appearance of the forerunner, in the power and spirit 
of Elijah, and the coming of the Lord himself to his temple. 6 

Such was the structure of the Messianic hope found in 
the Old Testament. Many other features were naturally 
added here and there by an interpretation that regarded 
Christ and his Church as the nucleus of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures. The list of supposed Messianic passages is by no 
means exhausted. But those mentioned are the most impor- 
tant, and have been most widely recognized. Old Testa- 
ment Christology stands or falls with them. A recognition 
of their true character reveals with increasing clearness the 
absence of the Christ-conception in the Hebrew canon, and 
the late appearance of the elements out of which it grew. 
This insight is the result of a long and painstaking scien- 
tific labor that has had no other aim than to discover the 
true significance of the language used in the sources, the 
exact value of these sources, and the real facts of history. 

The story of the Yahwe-garden in the land of Eden is a 
myth. Adam is not a historic personality. There is no 
reference to the Messiah. The constant struggle between 
man and beast, the toil of man, the suffering of woman, the 
sexual desire, the use of clothing, the godlike knowledge, 
yet the failure to attain perpetual existence, are explained 
by the myth as due to the action of a wise serpent revealing, 
contrary to Yahwe's intention, the magical virtue of a tree, 
and to Yahwe's intervention to prevent further encroach- 
ments on the prerogatives of gods. The curse upon the ser- 
pent does not contemplate any end to the conflict between 
men and serpents. Of the three peoples mentioned in the 
old song (Gen., ix, 25-27), Canaan is best known. The de- 
sire is there expressed that the Canaanites may become 
slaves of the nations represented by Shem and Japhet. 
That Shem is regarded as the people entitled to possess the 

1 Hag., ii, 7. 2 iii, 8 ; vi, 12. a ix, 9. 4 xi, 12. 6 xiii, 7. • iii, 1. 



40 THE PKOPHET OF NAZABETH 

territory and to enslave its Canaanitish inhabitants, is clear, 
not only from the prayer, "Bless, Yahwe, the tents of 
•Shem!" 1 but also from the concession, "Let him (Japhet) 
dwell in the tents of Shem!" Whatever other tribes the 
author may have had in mind, there can be little doubt that 
he thought in the first place of Israel. His reason for choos- 
ing the term ' ' Shem ' ' may have been to appeal to a larger 
circle of kinsmen for aid or approval in the subjugation of 
Canaan. It is probable that Japhet, afterwards used as a 
designation of various peoples in Asia Minor, Greece and 
the Mediterranean lands, here denotes the Philistines, whose 
Cretan origin becomes increasingly certain. At a time 
when the subjection of the Canaanites seemed of utmost im- 
portance, and the tribe to which the author belonged was 
still willing to share the land with other invaders on con- 
dition that they took a part in crushing the earlier inhabit- 
ants, this song was first heard. There is no word in it con- 
cerning the Messiah, or the Christian dispensation. 

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are probably the local heroes 
of Hebron, Beersheba and Shechem. Their names seem to 
indicate that as such they received divine honors in these 
places at an earlier period. The legends told of them reflect 
the spirit and ideals of the early royal period. AYhen the 
Canaanites had been actually subjugated, the question arose 
as to the justice of this deed. The right of Israel to the soil 
was then established by the fiction of a promise given to the 
mythical ancestor. 2 Conscience being satisfied, the sense of 
national greatness could voice itself by furnishing this an- 
cestor also with a promise that his descendants would be- 
come such "a great and mighty nation" that other peoples 
seeing their glory might wish to be as blessed as they. ' ' All 
nations shall be blessed," is a mistranslation. The verb has 
a reflexive force. It should be rendered : ' ' All nations shall 
bless themselves with thy descendants." This means that 

1 So the text should probably be read. Cf. Gunkel, Genesis, 1901, 
to this passage. 
"Cf. Schmidt, article Covenant in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 41 

they shall invoke upon themselves such blessings, such a 
marvelous prosperity, as they see Israel enjoying. 

Gen. xlix, 10b, is probably a late gloss. It adds nothing 
to the thought of the first half of the verse except emphasis 
upon Judah's rightful claim to authority over subject 
peoples. While the original poet sang : 

"Not turns from Judah the sceptre/ ' 
"Nor the staff from between his feet," 

an annotator seems to have added the couplet : 

1 ' Till that which belongs to him come, 
• ' And nations pay him homage. ' ' 

There is no suggestion here of a Messiah taking from the 
tribe of Judah its kingdom. 

The "star" that Balaam is represented as seeing is 
evidently the Judaean kingdom. The author of these proph- 
ecies lived, as is clear from the historic allusions, in the 
Assyrian period. He put his glorification of Judah in the 
mouth of a legendary heathen seer whose home tradition 
had not firmly fixed, and whose name was borrowed from an 
Edomitish king. There is no reference in the songs to the 
Messiah. 

That Deuteronomy, though it purports to be a work of 
Moses, originated centuries after his time, and was not 
introduced in Israel, even in its simplest form, until the 
eighteenth year of King Josiah, or 620 B. C, is one of the 
most certain results of Biblical criticism. The author of 
Deut. xviii, 15, looked back upon a long line of prophets like 
unto Moses, raised up by Yahwe one after another. He did 
not look forward to the Messiah. 

The poet by the grace of God to whom we owe the 
dialogues in the book of Job did not put upon his hero's 
lips, we may be sure, words such as Jerome, in his transla- 
tion, imputes to him in xix, 25, 26. Even the Massoretic 
text, though unquestionably corrupt, lies no doubt nearer 
to the original. Only by conjecture, aided by the ancient 
versions and the metre, the text may be approximately re- 



42 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

stored. It seems probable that the two tetrastichs (xix, 23- 
24, 25-26) originally read as follows: 

"Would that my words were written," 

"Were in a book recorded, 

"With lead and iron stylus" 

" Cut in the rock forever ! » ' 

"I know he lives, my goel, 

* ' Upon the dust he rises. 

"My witness will avenge me, 

"A curse will reach my foemen." 1 

God is the blood-avenger and the witness. There is no out- 
look into a future life. Here, as everywhere else in the 
book, the solution of the problem is sought on the earth, 
without the relief of an adjournment. There is no thought 
of a resurrection, or of a Messiah in the passage. 

David was a poet. His lament over Saul and Jonathan 
proves this. But he was not a psalm-singer. The Psalter 
is the hymn-book of the second temple. 2 Many of its songs 
may have been written in the Persian and Greek periods. 
The bulk no doubt belongs to the Hasmonaean age, as 
Olshausen perceived long ago. 3 Some of the psalms would 
never have been regarded as Messianic had they not been 
treated as such by New Testament writers. Ps. viii speaks 
of man in general, and not of this or that individual ; Ps. 
xvi expresses the confidence of a chasid, or pietist, of the 
Harmonaean period, that God will preserve his life; Ps. 
xiii is a prayer of one who has suffered much, containing 
no allusion to the Messiah. In Ps. xxiv, it is God himself 
who enters the temple, probably at its re-dedication in 165 
B. C, as Duhm has suggested ; 4 Ps. xl is the utterance of a 

1 The later accretions have been removed by Cheyne, Jewish Re- 
ligious Life after the Exile, 1898, p. 169. In his article on Job in 
the Encyclopaedia Biblica, he offers a different and less satisfactory 
restoration. 

2 This was shown with a wealth of arguments by Cheyne in his 
Bampton Lectures, 1SS9. 

*Die Psalmen, 1853. 

* Die Psalmen, 1S99. Perhaps the most valuable feature of this 
commentary is the lucid and convincing exposition of a number of 
Maccabaean and Hasmonaean hymns. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 43 

soul that has learned, through the study of some prophetic 
book-roll, that Yahwe wants obedience, and not sacrifices; 
the experience of the singer in xli, 10, that even a trusted 
servant proves faithless, is common enough in every age and 
does not refer to Judas Iscariot ; in Ps. lxviii, 19, a victory 
of Yahwe on Mount Bashan is described, and not the ascen- 
sion of Christ; Ps. cxviii, 22, is a proverb applicable in 
many historic circumstances. 

Far more natural was it that such hymns as Pss. ii, xxi, 
xlv, ex, and also xviii, xx, lxi, lxiii, lxviii, lxxxiv, lxxxix 
and exxxii, should be regarded as Messianic. In these 
Psalms a "king" is mentioned, and he is sometimes called 
"the Anointed." Most of these cases call for nothing but 
an ordinary king. As long as it was thought possible that 
some pre-exilic songs might have been preserved in the 
Psalter, it was accordingly supposed that kings of Judah 
were meant. With the recognition of the post-exilic origin 
of the Psalter this became impossible. Since in some in- 
stances the king, his relations to Yahwe, his victories and 
his reign are described in terms that seemed too exaggerated 
for any earthly monarch, the conclusion was drawn that 
either the holy people itself, or else its coming Messiah, was 
intended. Closer examination, however, reveals the fact 
that the transcendent conception of royalty is most natural 
and best authenticated in the Hasmonaean period. Follow- 
ing Egyptian custom, the Ptolemies had assumed divine 
titles. The king was "born of gods," "son of Isis and 
Osiris," "god of god and goddess." There is no reason to 
suppose that emancipated aristocrats in Jerusalem hesitated 
to accord such titles to an Antiochus III. Even in earlier 
times the king had been looked upon in Israel as a god-like 
being; (cp. II Sam. xiv, 17, 20, where "angel" is un- 
doubtedly a later addition, and Isa. ix, 6.) In Pss. lvii, 2, 
and lxxxii, 6, Pharisaic hymn-writers scornfully designate 
the Hasmonaean rulers as "gods." There would be no 
sting in this sarcasm, if they were not actually designated as 
such. That this was the case, is shown by Ps. xlv, where 
the poet laureate of one of these princes on the occasion of a 



44 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

royal wedding apostrophizes the monarch: "Thy throne, 
god! is forever and aye," and "0 god! thy God has 
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy broth- 
ers/ n The king whose epithalamium this is does not be- 
long to the future. In Ps. ii the anointed king on Zion is 
represented as proclaiming to the rebellious nations a divine 
decree, given on his accession to the throne, by which they 
were delivered to him. By this anointment the political 
ruler in Jerusalem becomes the ' ' son ' ' of Yah we, his repre- 
sentative on earth, whose duty it is to secure recognition 
among the nations for the Lord of heaven. Without the 
ardent hope that the kingdom of the world would be given 
to the saints of the Most High, this bold conception would 
not have been possible. But this king is not an apocalyptic 
figure. He is on the field. A part of the world has already 
been conquered. The rest will inevitably follow. Already 
a generation earlier Simon was greeted by a court poet, in 
Ps. ex, as Yahwe's vicegerent, the new Melehizedek. ruler, 
though not of Davidic descent, high priest, though not of 
the pontifical family. As in this psalm, so in I Mace, xiv, 
41, the double dignity is conferred upon Simon "for ever," 
which probably means that it was to be a hereditary right. 
That the Hasmonaean kings applied to themselves the sup- 
posed promises to David in II Sam. vii, is only natural, 
and may be clearly seen in Ps. lxxxix. The term "Mes- 
siah" is naturally used of the anointed priestly r; 
But although the language is occasionally strongly ti 
with apocalyptic imagery, there is nowhere a reference to a 
future deliverer, a coming Messiah. 

Solomon is not the author of any of the works ascribed 
to him. Ps. lxxii is a prayer for a living king. The singer 

1 All ancient witnesses to the text agree. If there is a corruption, 
it must have taken place at a very early time. Bruston has suggested, 
Du texte primitive des Psaumes, 1873, that an original yihyeh — 
"there shall be" was mistaken for Yahwe and this afterwards 
changed into Elohim. Wellhausen and Duhm have accepted this con- 
jecture. But that so simple a reading should have been lost every- 
where, and one offering such difficulties to later thought adopted, i3 
not probable. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 45 

desires for his sovereign long life, prosperity, wide con- 
quests, and an enduring name. There is no necessity for 
regarding this king as a Ptolemy. Why should not a 
Jewish poet have found it in his heart to wish as good 
things for a native ruler as for a foreign potentate ? Nor is 
there any need of supposing verses 5-11 to be an interpola- 
tion. The description of wisdom in Prov. viii, 22-31, is 
generally regarded as a poetic expression of the fact that 
wisdom is manifest in the creation of the world. But it 
may be doubted whether the conception of wisdom as a 
divine child, conceived and born in heaven before the 
creation, and playing as Yah we 's nursling in the new-made 
world, can have sprung full-fledged from the author's 
fancy. It is more likely to have a mythical origin. Ara- 
mati is Ahura Mazda's child. 1 The role that Wisdom plays 
in this passage is most extraordinary. There is no sugges- 
tion of an " eternal generation," and no connection with the 
Messianic idea. Canticles is neither an allegory of Christ's 
love for his church, nor a drama exhibiting the steadfast 
affection of a country maiden for her shepherd lover amid 
the fascinations of King Solomon 's harem, nor yet a descrip- 
tion of wedded love for a didactic purpose, but simply a 
string of love lyrics portraying the strongest of human 
passions. 2 

Hosea spoke of Israel as returning from Egypt, 3 and 
rebuked the foolish confidence that looked for a recovery 
* ' in two or three days ' ' from the serious ills of the nation. 4 
The book of Joel probably was written in the third century. 

1 Cf . C. P. Tiele, Geschicdenis van den godsdienst in de oudheid, 
II, 1, 1895, p. 138, and E. Stave, Ueber den Einfluss des Parsismus 
auf das Judentum, 1898, p. 206; Cheyne, Semitic Studies, 1897, p. 
112, thought of Persian influence; Beer, in Theologische Literatur- 
zeitung, 1899, p. 330, particularly of Vahu Mano. Aramati seems to 
the present writer more likely to be the original. 

2 Cf . Schmidt, The Messages of the Poets in the series on The Mes- 
sages of the Bible, edited by Sanders and Kent, and his article 'Cant- 
icles * in the New International Encyclopaedia, 1902-1904. 

•XI, 1. 
4 VI, 2. 



46 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

The author expected that the signs of the coming catastro- 
phe would be so numerous as to fill the minds of young and 
old in Israel with prophetic premonitions. In a post- 
exilic appendix to Amos a copyist or annotator has ex- 
pressed the hope that the Davidic dynasty, fallen to the 
ground as a tent, may be established again. He no doubt 
thought of some surviving member of the royal family as 
the means of raising the prostrate tent. Obadiah declares 
that "conquerors shall go up from Mount Zion to judge 
Mount Esau." The words occur in what is probably an 
addition in the Hasmonaean age to a prophecy dating itself 
from the Persian period. The marvel of the book of Jonah 
is not the story of the fish, which is neither possible in itself 
nor in any way suggestive of the resurrection, but its quaint 
humor and its warm human sympathy. Micah iv-vii forms 
an appendix presenting a marked similarity to Zech. ix-xiv, 
and possibly is a product of the second century. The 
author looks for vengeance upon the heathen oppressors 
and restoration of the kingdom, not to nobles and men of 
royal blood in the capital, but to the country. From little 
Beth Ephrathah the great ruler of Israel will come forth as 
of yore. Is it David himself who will return to earth, or 
some descendant of his living at what was supposed to be 
the old family residence who will come forth to meet the 
present emergency, or a man like David who will step to 
the front from some obscure corner of Judaea ! The literal 
interpretation is not impossible. If Elijah, Jeremiah, or 
any one of the prophets, as it would seem from Matth. xvi, 
14, might be expected to return to earth, why not David? 
Yet it is perhaps more probable that the writer looked for a 
new David, and his eyes may already have descried a new 
Beth Ephrathah in little Modein, the cradle of the Hasmo- 
naean princes. Micah v, 2, is an interpolation, not neces- 
sarily dependent on Isa. vii, 14. 

There is no reference to the Messiah in Isaiah ii, 1 ff. This 
prophet did not predict in vii, 14 ft', that a virgin would 
bear a child, and that the child would be the Messiah. The 
word translated "virgin" really means "young woman," 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 47 

married or unmarried. The sign consists in this, that a 
woman pregnant at the time the prophet spoke would, when 
she had borne her son, call him Immanuel. So quickly would 
the much feared Syro-Ephraimitic coalition collapse, that 
in less than a year a mother would call her new born child 
"With-us-is-God," in characteristic forgetfuiness of the 
fatal weakness within, and the more formidable foe looming 
up in the background. This enemy would soon cover 
Judah, as well as Damascus and Israel, and make it a 
wilderness where a surviving remnant might learn to 
choose the good and reject the evil. And this should be a 
warning sign to dynasty and people. There is not a word in 
the text about a virgin or a Messiah. 1 That Isa. ix, 1 ff. and 
xi, 1 ff. are not the work of the great pre-exilic prophet has 
been recognized by Stade, 2 Hackmann, 3 Cheyne, 4 Volz 5 and 
Marti. 6 These passages presuppose the fall of the dynasty, 
the exile, and the changed attitude of Yahwe to his people. 
It is evident that the joyous confidence these poems breathe 
is occasioned by the birth of a son in the Davidic family 
under especially favorable political circumstances. As the 
background is clearly the exile, Sellin 7 has thought of the 
birth of Zerubbabel, which presumably took place at the 
time when the destruction of the Babylonian empire was 
threatened by the advancing Persians. But in Isa. xl- 
xlviii, written at that period, Yahwe has no king but Cyrus. 
It, therefore, seems more probable that it was the elevation 
of Jehoiachin from his dungeon, his reinstatement in the 
honors at court belonging to his rank, and the birth of his 
son, Sin-apal-uzur (or Sheshbazzar), the later governor of 
Judaea (ca. 561 B.C.), that inspired these hopes. The 

*Cf. especially F. C. Porter, A Suggestion regarding Isaiah's Im- 
manuel in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1895, p. 19 ff., and ar- 
ticles Immanuel and Isaiah by Cheyne in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. 

2 Geschichte Israels, I, 1885, p. 596. 

8 Die ZuJcunftserwartung des Jesaia, Gottingen, 1893, p. 130 ff. 

• Introduction to the Boole of Isaiah, 1895, p. 44 ff . 

8 Die Vorexilische Yahweprophetie und der Messias, 1897, p. 57 ff. 

• Das Buch Isaia, 1900, p. 95. 
T Serubbabel, 1898, p. 37. 



48 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

voices that the great prophet of the exile hears ordering the 
way to be prepared for Yahwe 's return to Jerusalem are 
. evidently those of celestial agents entrusted with the trans- 
formation of historic conditions to this end. Although 
many an individual sufferer must have furnished the char- 
acteristic features of the Servant of Yahwe in Isa. xl-lv, it 
can scarcely be subject to serious doubt that this figure rep- 
resents the people of Israel, whose patient endurance of evil 
in the exile is felt to have a redemptive value, and whose 
reorganized national life, it is hoped, will bring the knowl- 
edge of the only living God to the other nations of the 
earth. 1 The famous section, lii, 13-liii, 12, is retrospective 
and philosophical. It does not predict a coming redeemer. 
It is Yahwe himself who comes to Zion in Isa. lix, 20, and 
in lxi, 1 ff. the prophet introduces himself as clothed with 
the spirit of Yahwe to bring the glad tidings of liberty to 
his poor compatriots. Nowhere in the book of Isaiah is 
there a prediction of the coming in the future of a person 
designated as the Messiah. 

The author of Jer. xxiii, 5 ff., emphasizes the righteous 
character and royal dignity of the " Shoot" to be raised to 
David, whose name will be Jozedek. 2 As Geiger recognized 
long ago, the writer lived in the Hasmonaean period. The 
name possibly contains a hint of the pontifical succession; 
the Hasmonaeans were naturally regarded as the successors 
of David ; the royal title apparently is still a hope. In Jer. 
xxxiii, 14-26, a late fragment not yet found in the copy 
used by the earliest Greek version, the writer evidently 
looks upon the Hasmonaean princes and high-priests as the 
legitimate successors of the Davidic dynasty and the 
Aaronid family. He rebukes the people that look upon 
these families as having been " rejected," coming to their 
end with Zedekiah and Onias. To his way of thinking, the 
promise to David is manifestly being fulfilled in the pres- 
ent dynasty, and there will always be a king sitting on the 

*Cf. especially Budde, Die sogenannten Ebed-Yahvce-Licder, 1900. 
* E. V. ' ■ The Lord is our righteousness ; ' ■ the Greek version has 
Jozedek. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 49 

throne of David, and guaranteeing the continuance of the 
priesthood. The little book, Jer. xxx, xxxi, is probably a 
product of the first decades of the fifth century, when the 
Graeco-Persian conflict stirred new hopes of independence 
in Judaea. 1 Rachel's lament over her children as dead, 
and the reward for her tender care in their return from 
captivity, have nothing to do with the story of the massacre 
of infants in Bethlehem. Her tomb was at Ramah (1 
Sam. x, 2), and her children were Joseph and Benjamin 
and their descendants. "Foemina circumddbit virion/' 
Jer. xxxi, 22, continues to be to Roman Catholic theology 
as important, as a Messianic prophecy, as il Ecce virgo con- 
cipiet," Isa. vii, 14, has until recent times been to Protestant 
theology. That * ' a woman surrounds a man ' ' is understood 
to mean that she carries within her a male child. But since 
this would be a common occurrence, and not a miracle, the 
1 ' woman ' ' must be the Virgin Mary, the ' ' man ' ' Jesus, and 
the "new thing" her pregnant condition without the aid of 
a man. The passage should probably be read and ren- 
dered, "I will create a new thing— men will walk about in a 
redeemed land. ' ' 2 The establishment of national independ- 
ence and prosperity, revealing Yahwe's pardoning grace 
and awakening a willingness to obey his law, is the new ar- 
rangement that the prophet yearns for (xxxi, 31). Ez. xi, 
19, speaks of willingness to obey Yahwe's commandments, 
and not of the Christian dispensation. The "lofty top of 
the cedar" (Ez. xvii, 22), like the "one who has the right" 
to the ruined city of Jerusalem (xxi, 32), is evidently 
Jehoiachin. Ez. xxxiv, 23, 24, seems to be an interpolation 
breaking the context and at variance with its thought. The 
same hand has probably introduced "my servant David" 
in Ez. xxxvii, 24, 25. Whether the annotator used this 
name simply as an appellative, or actually had in mind the 
historical David, he appears to have wished that his people 
might have a king like David. His ideal was in the past. 

1 Cf . Schmidt, article Jeremiah (the Boole) in the Encyclopaedia 
Biblica, and The Booh of Jeremiah in the New World, December, 1900. 
a Schmidt, I. c. 



50 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

The book of Daniel was written at the time of the Macca- 
baean uprising (ca. 165 B. C), as is now universally ad- 
.mitted. It never speaks of the Messiah. The being ''like 
a man ' ' that appears on the clouds of heaven is the celestial 
representative of Israel. By many interpreters it is held 
to be a symbol of the humane regime characteristic of the 
new world power. More probably it is here, as elsewhere, an 
angel, and in that case undoubtedly the angel Michael, 
Israel's celestial patron. 1 The "anointed prince," Dan. 
ix, 25, is probably Joshua ben Jozadak, with whom the high- 
priestly office begins, and the "anointed," who is "cut off," 
i. e., removed from his place, is either Jochanan-Onias III, 
possibly the founder of the temple at Leontopolis, 2 or 
Joshua- Jason, with whom the legitimate line comes to its 
end. Haggai does not speak of a person at all in ii, 7, but 
of precious gems as being brought into the temple. If the 
references to the "branch" in Zech. iii, 8, vi, 12, are orig- 
inal, 3 the Davidic descendant Zerubbabel is meant, whose 
coronation as king Zechariah expected. The additions to 
the book (chs. ix-xiv), made in the second century, allude 
to some of the rulers of the people immediately before the 
Maccabaean revolt. The shepherd who is no longer willing 
to feed the flock, lays down his office, demands payment, re- 
ceives the inadequate sum of thirty shekels, and deposits 
these in the temple treasury, may well be Ilyrcanus. the son 
of Tobias, as Wellhausen 4 has suggested; and the wicked 
shepherd who stands so near to Yahwe, yet is slain by him, 
may be Menelaus. The pious and victorious ruler who en- 
ters Zion in triumph, and leads the sons of Judah against 

*Cf. Schmidt, The "Son of Man" in the Book of Daniel in Journal 
of Biblical Literature, 1900, II, p. 22 ff, and Julius Grill, Untersvch- 
vnacn iibcr die Entstehung des vierten Evangcliums, 1902, p. 55 ff. 

f Cf. Hugo Willrieh, Juden und Griechen for der Makkabdischen 
Erhebung, 1S95 ; Vk'ellhausen, Gott gel. Anzcigen, 1S95, p. 951 ff; 
Israelitisehe und jiidische Geschiehte* 1S97, p. 244 f. 

■Jj\ E. Peiser, Zu Zakharia in Orientalistische Litteratur 
tuna. 15 Aug., 1901, col. 313. and Duhm, Das Bueh Jeremia, 1901, 
p. 181 f, express grave doubts. 

4 Die kleinen rropheten, 1S98, p. 196. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 51 

the sons of Greece, is probably one of the Hasmonaeans. It 
is Yahwe himself, and not the Messiah, whom Malachi de- 
scribes as entering his temple to purge the sons of Levi, 
that they may offer proper sacrifices ; and it is the real Eli- 
jah, who was carried away alive from the earth, that he looks 
for to heal the internal dissensions and to render it possible 
for Yahwe to dwell in the temple. 

The Hebrew Bible contains no prophecy of the appear- 
ance upon earth of such a personality as Jesus of Nazareth 
seems to have been. Nor does it anywhere predict the com- 
ing of such a being as the Messiah of Jewish thought was 
in the Roman period. The term "Messiah," or " Yahwe 's 
Messiah," is used as a designation of kings, high-priests, 
and priestly rulers, who have actually been invested with 
their office by anointment. No member of the old royal 
family, around whom political hopes clustered in the Chal- 
daean and Persian periods, was called "the Messiah." As 
a designation of a earning deliverer, this term is not found 
in the Hebrew canon. No passage written while kings 
ruled in Jerusalem and Samaria even alludes to any future 
monarch. When the long-lived dynasty of the Isaidae had 
fallen, it waa but natural that the hope of national inde- 
pendence should center on some descendant of this distin- 
guished family. The theocratic interests of the priesthood 
tended to check such political aspirations. The Macca- 
baean insurrection started among country priests from re- 
ligious motives. Through these inspired heroes the faithful 
expected the world to be conquered. Patriotic souls, im- 
pressed with Israel's moral and religious superiority, 
watched the Hasmonaean restoration of the Davidic king- 
dom with a sense of manifest destiny. Out of this eschato- 
logical mood the Messianic hope in its strictest sense was 
born, when the Roman eagles had swooped down upon the 
land. This mood had found expression, since the exile, in 
many an eager look into the future. It is an abuse of the 
term "Messianic," however, to apply it to expressions of 
hope for deliverance from oppression, victory over enemies, 
great changes in the world, or a good time to come, where 



52 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

these contain no allusion whatever to a Messiah. This is 
only a source of confusion. Those who recognize that there 
. is no Christology of the Old Testament would better avoid a 
term properly understood as indicating that a passage 
refers to Christ and his kingdom. 

Although these utterances of poets and seers in Israel do 
not present the life and character of Jesus, and must be 
misinterpreted to yield prophecies even of the Messiah his 
contemporaries expected, their value is very great. They 
breathe the atmosphere of hope. It is not the bracing air 
of the great, sad prophets of doom who were before the 
exile. But men live by it. It matters little that the star 
of Jacob sank in blood, that Heldai's crown 1 never adorned 
Zerubbabel's brow, that no son of David ever crushed the 
nations as worthless vessels. As a fact of history, as a les- 
son for the race, it was important that this people should 
see its visions, dream its dreams, and rise from repeated 
disenchantments to new nights of hope. 

A type is a stamp that bean the effigy to be impressed 
upon something, e. g., a coin, or, by derivation, the effigy 
itself in the stamp. The impression in the coin is the anti- 
type. Metaphorically, a type is any object containing an 
image, that is an analogy, by which it is fitted to represent, 
by the operation of the mind, another object. The type 
contributes nothing to the antitype. It only shadows forth 
the outlines of the object represented. It suggests it. It 
is a sign. But it differs from a sacrament by being transi- 
tory in its nature, not permanent, a sign of future, not of 
present, grace. 

There are different classes of types. They may be di- 
vided into the following categories: I, Typical Sacra- 
ments; II, Typical Miracles; III, Typical Persons; IV, 
Typical Sacrifices; V, Typical Ablutions; VI, Typical in- 
struments; VII, Typical Places; VIII, Typical Festivals; 
IX, Typical Visions ; X, Typical Enemies. 2 

1 Zech., VI, 10, 11. 

2 This classification has been taken from the great work of Anton 

Hulsius, Nucleus Prophttiac, Leiden, 10S3. The illustrations of each 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 53 

The first type, like the first prophecy, was given to man 
in the garden of Eden. The tree of life was a sacramental 
type. Not the fruit itself, but the faith that expressed 
itself in the act of eating it had the power of giving eternal 
life; just as the fruit of the forbidden tree had no virtue 
to bestow knowledge of good and evil aside from the dis- 
obedience shown in eating it. After the fall, the first typ- 
ical sacrament instituted was circumcision. 1 This sign of 
the covenant was a seal of Abraham 's justification by faith, 2 
and typified baptism, the sign of the new covenant. Sim- 
ilarly, the paschal lamb 3 was a type of Christ 4 appropriated 
in the eucharist. 5 Miracles, like the deliverance of Noah 
from the flood 6 and the Israelites from the Red Sea, 7 and 
the supply of manna from heaven, 8 and water from the 
rock 9 were also types of the Christian sacraments. 10 

Adam, the man of earth, was a type of Christ, the man 
from heaven. 11 Abraham, who looked for the city that hath 
the foundations, was a type of the militant and aspiring 
church. 12 Sarah typified the celestial Jerusalem, Hagar the 
terrestrial, Isaac all believers in Christ. 13 Melchizedek, the 
priest-king "without genealogy," who blessed Abraham 
and received tithes from him, was a type of the eternal Son 
of God. 14 Jacob and Esau typified the elect and the non- 
class have also been largely drawn from this source. There is no bet- 
ter guide. This Leiden professor was a man of profound erudition 
and remarkable keenness of judgment, thoroughly familiar with an- 
cient and modern Jewish interpretations and not affected by critical 
thought. The value of his work was recognized by Hengstenberg, 
who was greatly indebted to it. Fairbairn's book Typology of Scrip- 
ture (6th ed. 1880), is far less comprehensive and satisfactory than 
that of Hulsius as a statement of orthodox doctrine, defends it with 
less ingenuity and acuteness, and is not a whit more critical. There 
is no modern work through which a student can readily learn what 
has become of typology, what was its fatal error, and what was the 
truth that gave it such a power. Yet it is intrinsically quite as impor- 
tant as ' ' Messianic prophecy. ' ' 

1 Gen., xvii. * Rom., iv, 11. 'Ex., xii. 4 II Cor., v, 7. B John, vi, 
53. t Gen., vii. 7 Ex., xiv, 21 ff. 8 Ex., xvi. B Ex., xvii. 10 1 Pet, 
iii, 17; I Cor., x, 1-4. U I Cor., xv, 45-49. u Eel., xi, 10. " Gal, iv, 
26 ff. "Eeo., vii, 1 ff. 



54 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

elect. 1 Moses, as the mediator of a covenant, was a type of 
Christ. 2 Priests, prophets and kings were types of Christ 
and his people. 

Already Abel's sacrifice, acceptable because bloody, 
piacular and offered in faith, was a type of Christ 's atoning 
death. 3 Even more adequately was this death fore- 
shadowed in Gen. xxii, where Abraham undertakes to offer 
his only-begotten son. The sacrificial system ordained by 
God through Moses, by constantly emphasizing the thought 
that without the shedding of blood there could be no for- 
giveness of sins, pointed typically to the only offering whose 
blood could really atone for sin. 4 The regulations concern- 
ing the animals to be offered and the time and manner of 
their presentation prefigured the perfection of Christ's 
sacrifice. The ablutions prescribed in the law were types 
of the cleansing from impurity in the blood of Christ, 
accomplished in the new covenant through the Holy Spirit 
by means of baptism. The ark of the covenant, the altar 
and the ephod all were types of Christ, his sacrifice, and 
his righteousness in which the believer is clothed. 

The heavenly temple in which Christ presented his sacri- 
fice 5 was the antitype of tabernacle, temple and asylum. 
The sacred seasons ordained by Moses were types of the 
spiritual blessings in Christ, and also of the sacred seasons 
of Christendom. Thus the Jewish sabbath on the seventh 
day prefigured the Christian sabbath on the day of Christ 's 
resurrection, the Passover, the Easter festival, and the Feast 
of Weeks, the Pentecost celebrating the gift of the Holy 
Spirit. 

Besides visions concerning the future of their own people, 
the prophets were also given visions in which the church 
universal and invisible was typically set forth. In such 
cases the angel of the covenant, i. c, the pre-existent Christ 
himself, appeared and presented his church under the figure 
of an acceptable offering, 6 angels ascending on a ladder." a 

1 Bom., ix, 11. *Gal, iii, 19. * Heb. f xii, 24. *Eel., ix, 13, 14. 
H eh., ix, 24. e Gen., xv. T Gen., xxviii. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 55 

bush burning yet never consumed, 1 or a temple. 2 The great 
enemy of Christ and his church, the devil, was typified by 
Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Such were the types generally recognized by Protestant 
scholars before modern criticism began to cast discredit on 
typology. Catholic theologians would have included many 
more, and given to some a different interpretation. The 
critical study of the Hebrew Scriptures has eliminated these 
types. Messianic prophecy still figures in recent works on 
the religion of Israel, though the term "Messianic" no 
longer conveys its old meaning ; but one now looks in vain 
for a single word on the subject of typology. We shall find 
abundant reason, however, when our survey of the field is 
concluded, to recognize beneath all that may have seemed 
merely fanciful or fantastic an element of reality. The 
successive cycles of experience, as reflected in history, are 
not unrelated, they have their similarities and correspond- 
ences in their common relation to the unchanging facts of 
nature and of life. 

No tree of life ever grew on earth. It offered its fruits 
of immortality only in the mythical gardens of the gods. 
Circumcision was not a custom peculiar to the Jews. It 
was practised by Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, Ca- 
naanites, Egyptians, Midianites and numerous other peo- 
ples. 8 Originally it was a sacrifice of holy blood to the 
tribal deity on entering the cult-community at the age of 
puberty, possibly regarded as an abbreviated phallic sac- 

1 Ex., iii. * Ezek., xl, ff . 

•Cf. Jer., ix, 25; Herodotus, ii, 36; Philo, ii, 210, ed. Mangey; 
Diod, Sic, iii, 31; Strabo, xvii, 824; Ploss, Das Kind in Branch 
und Sitte der V biker,* 1882, I, 842 f.; article Circumcision by Ben- 
zinger in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. In regard to Egypt it is of inter- 
est to notice that the man represented on a plaque now in the Louvre, 
published by Heuzey in Bulletin de correspondence hellenique, 1892, 
p. 307 f. and pi. I, as being gored by a bull, is manifestly circumcised. 
That he is an Egyptian and likely to have lived in the days before 
Mena, has been shown by Georg Steindorff in Aegyptiaca, Fest- 
schrift fur Georg Ebers, 1897, p. 128 ff. But circumcision is not 
likely to have been a novelty in the world even in the sixth millen- 
nium B. C. 



56 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

rifice. 1 Later it was transferred to infancy as a dedicatory 
rite. In the New Testament it is not a type of baptism, 
but of the removal of a carnal disposition. Unquestion- 
ably, baptism, in its development from the immersion of 
adults to the sprinkling of infants, shows a marked similar- 
ity to circumcision. But the religious bath has a different 
origin and significance ; and the later transformation of the 
rite to adapt it to the same purpose as circumcision is wholly 
foreign to the New Testament where the antitype should 
appear. The Pesach, or Leap Feast, as it was called, prob- 
ably because of the gamboling of the young animals at the 
time when firstlings were offered to Yahwe, gradually be- 
came a memorial of the deliverance from Egypt. No Israel- 
ite could have thought of the Messiah in connection with 
the paschal lamb. It was the death of Jesus and the sup- 
posed reference to him in Isa. liii, 7, that led to this remark- 
able conception. The idea of a suffering Messiah, with 
which even the disciples of Jesus are entirely unfamiliar, 
does not appear in Rabbinic writings until centuries later. 
If the eucharist is suggested in John vi, 53, the idea of a 
material appropriation of Christ therein is clearly rejected 
by the assertion: "The flesh profiteth nothing, the words 
that I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life," vi, 63. 2 
The story of the deluge is a myth of Babylonian origin, 
ultimately founded on a constantly recurring natural phe- 
nomenon. 3 The crossing of the Red Sea by aid of a miracle, 
the manna falling down from heaven, and the water issuing 
from a rock that, in the last version, moves along with the 
Israelites through the desert, 4 belong to legendary lore. 
That the development of such folk-tales should have been 
divinely intended to prefigure the services rendered by 

*Cf. Schmidt, article Circumcision in the New International Ency- 
clopedia, 1902. 

*Cf. Schmidt, The Character of Christ's Last Meal in Journal of 
Biblical Literature. 1S92, p. 20. 

8 Cf. Hermann Usener, Die Sintfluthsagen, 1899; P. Jensen. Die 
Kosmoloaie der Babylonier, 1890, p. 365 ff. 

«I Cor.,x, 1-4. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 57 

Jesus to the world, or the fictitious values ascribed to ecclesi- 
astical rites, is difficult to believe. 

Adam is not a historic personality. Abram, the numen 
of Hebron, and his consort and sister Sarah 1 are not likely 
to have walked upon the earth as human beings. Even in 
the early legends, Abraham does not look for a celestial city, 
and Sarah 's character is not suggestive of a heavenly Jeru- 
salem. Hagar, in the legend a Muzrite slave, in reality 
seems to have been an Arabian tribe. 2 Before an allegoriz- 
ing interpretation capable of finding any desired meaning 
in any text had come into vogue, no person would have 
thought of seeing in this figure a mountain in Arabia, 3 or a 
religious community in bondage to the letter. Isaac, the 
benignantly smiling El of Beersheba, or the characterless 
hero offered by his father, could not have led men in Israel 
to think of the Messiah. The name Melchizedek, signifying 
"the god Zedek is my king," may have formed a part of 
the earlier stratum in Gen. xiv ; the role Melchizedek plays 
is generally recognized as one of the latest midrashic crea- 
tions in the Hebrew Bible. That a king is also a priest, is 
a common occurrence in history, and that a foreign king's 
pedigree is unknown, cannot be deemed strange. But when 
Simon was proclaimed high-priest and prince in 141 B. C, 
a poet was glad to discover a precedent in Melchizedek 's 
case for a divinely recognized pontificate and royalty out- 
side of the Aaronid and Davidic families, Ps. ex. Not 
until the author of Hebrews felt the necessity of vindicat- 
ing for Jesus the right of exercising priestly functions, is 
it likely that any one dreamed of regarding the fact that 
Melchizedek 's parentage was not mentioned as an indication 

x In Babylonia, Ishtar is also called sharratu, sometimes sister, 
sometimes daughter, of Sin. 

* In Aegyptiaca, Festschrift fur Georg Ebers, 1897, p. 25 ff., Hom- 
mel gives an account of a list of hierodules from different parts of 
Arabia and neighboring countries found among Glaser's inscriptions. 
Some of the women come from Hagar. Winckler compares the Ha- 
garites of I Chron., v, 10, 19, 20, Musri, Meluhha, Main 1898, p. 51, in 
Mitteiungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft. 

• Gal. iv, 25. 



58 THE PROPHET OF NAZABETH 

of the pre-existence of the Son of God, or found in the 
priest-king of Salem an intimation of the character and 
work of the ascended Christ. Jacob and Esau are the 
eponymous heroes of the two nations, Israel and Edom. 
That Yahwe of his own free grace had chosen Israel was 
the corollary drawn by the author of Isa. xl-xlviii from his 
conviction that the only living God, the Maker of heaven 
and earth, was none other than the God of his fathers. He 
hurled from Yahwe 's presence the gods of the nations as 
lifeless statues without making his tribal god large enough 
to fill the vacant places. From this error a certain form of 
the doctrine of election suffers. It does not shadow forth 
the larger truth that Jesus touched. The accounts that have 
come down to us of the Sinaitic covenant are centuries later 
than the time of Moses, and cannot be used as historic doc- 
uments. 1 Priests, prophets and kings were not peculiar to 
Israel. Those pre-exilic prophets whose moral earnestness 
made the richest contribution to the religious life of the 
nation had indeed much in common with the Jesus of his- 
tory, but for this very reason were less suggestive of the 
Christ they have been supposed to typify. 

Sacrifices are common to all peoples. "Whether they are 
preponderatingly animal or vegetable, depends to some 
extent upon the climate, and even more upon social condi- 
tions. Cain's offering (Gen. iv, 3) is no doubt spurned 
because of its character, but this character is determined by 
a peculiar mode of life. The Kenites had settled down to 
agricultural life, and the offerings brought to their Yahwe 
sanctuaries consisted of vegetables. On the other hand, the 
destroyed tribe Abel followed the nomadic life, and 
brought to Yahwe, as did the patriarchs, the firstlings of 
their flocks. But if this tribe was crowded out of existence 
by the Kenites, they were forced themselves from their 
beloved shrines into the steppe, without even recognized 
pasture-grounds, and would have been exterminated but 

1 Schmidt, article Covenant in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 59 

for the Yahwe sign they bore, probably circumcision. 1 
There is nothing in this story that would have led a Jewish 
reader to think of the Messiah. 

The story of Abraham's trial is evidently told to show 
both the value of human sacrifices and the legitimacy of 
animal substitutes for them. The first-born, whether of 
man or beast, belongs to Yahwe. They were once sacrificed 
before the custom of redeeming the human offspring devel- 
oped. No sacrifice could be more precious, no religious 
faith perfect that would be unwilling to render it. Yet 
Yahwe graciously accepts the will for the deed and is 
satisfied with a ram as a substitute. In this case, the human 
sacrifice is manifestly not intended as an atonement for sin, 
but only as a voluntary offering. 

In the earlier parts of the sacrificial legislation, all of 
post-Mosaic origin, the centre of the cult is the sacrificial 
meal, while in the later portions, dating from the Persian 
period, the emphasis lies on the atonement. By this is 
meant the restoration of the ability to participate in the 
cult after a forfeiture of this privilege by sin. The "sin" 
does not always imply moral obliquity, and a changed moral 
attitude is not required for the effectiveness of the sacrifice. 
An awakening scepticism might question whether the blood 
of bulls and goats could really remove sin, but neither the 
law nor the temple practice suggested a doubt on this score. 
Those who believed the divine assurance that, if they offered 
a certain sacrifice, their sin would be forgiven, had no right 
to look upon it with misgivings, or occasion to desire a 
better sacrifice. If animal sacrifices were divinely ordained 
for the removal of sin, the apostolic premise is false. If the 
blood of bulls cannot take away sin, such sacrifices cannot 
have been divinely ordained for that purpose. If they were 
ordained, not to take away sin, but to make men conscious 

1 It is the merit of Stade to have suggested the true interpretation 
of this story, Das Kainszeichen in Zeitschrift fiir Alttestamentische 
Wissenschaft, 1894, p. 250. He thinks of a sign on the forehead. 
Circumscision, which seems to have been practised with great zeal 
among the Midianities, is more likely to be the sign. 



60 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

of their inability to do so and thereby to point to a more 
valuable sacrifice, the avowed purpose is deceptive, and the 
.real one concealed. Rather than pointing forward to a 
divinely-demanded sacrifice of an innocent human being as 
a propitiation for the guilty, the institution of animal 
offerings must have led thoughtful minds to look back with 
gratitude to the abolition of human sacrifices. 

Ablutions, in Israel as among other nations, served the 
purpose of washing away the contagious sanctity communi- 
cated by touching tabued objects, such as articles used in 
the cult, dead bodies (the earthly habitat of beings that 
have joined the Elohim-circle ) , lepers (smitten of God), or 
impurity as, in many instances, it was later felt to be. The 
lustrations out of which baptism grew no doubt had the 
same origin. 1 But it is not likely that any Hebrew who 
washed himself after touching a corpse was by this act 
caused to think either of the coming Christ or of Christian 
baptism. 

Sacred chests were used in the worship of many gods. 
The two stones, supposed to contain a decalogue not 
written until long after the ark had finally disappeared, 
were probably none else than the oracle-stones Urim and 
Thummim 2 that were used like the seven arrows of Hubal 
in Mecca. All gods had altars. The ephod was originally 

1 Schneckenburger thought it probable that even the baptism of 
John was a self-lustration, Ueber das Alter der judischen Proselyten- 
Taufe, 1828, p. 92 f . Brandt is of the opinion that John set the ex- 
ample of frequent self-immersions and hence received the name of 
" Baptist,' ' Die Evangelische Geschichte, 1893, p. 45 ff. Brandt, like 
Schneckenburger, assumes that the baptism of proselytes is later than 
the time of John. Arrian's statement, Disputatio Epicteti i, 9, which 
Schneckenburger wrongly sought to invalidate, is probably our 
earliest testimony. It is good only for the middle of the second 
century. It is likely that proselyte baptism was nothing but the 
first sacred bath enjoined upon a convert in earlier times, and would 
not differ in character from any other lustration. 

2 Cf. Muss-Arnolt, The Urim and Thummim, Am. Journ. of Semitic 
Languages, July, 1900, p. 1 ff. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 61 

in Israel a molten image of Yahwe. 1 Gideon's ephod at 
Ophrah was an idol made of seventeen hundred shekels of 
gold. 2 Sacred stones, trees, fountains, mountain tops, arti- 
ficial mounds, houses and cities are not peculiar to Israel, 
or to the Semitic nations. They are found in every race 
and nation. The tabernacle in the wilderness is evidently 
a work of imagination copied from the Solomonic temple. 
This temple itself was built upon Phoenician models by 
Tyrian architects and workmen. From first to last this 
royal sanctuary seems to have been the home of other gods 
beside Yahwe. Zerubbabel's temple, though smaller, was 
made more glorious by a purer cult. Yet many felt that 
Yahwe had never come to reside in this temple. 3 Herod 
built temples to many gods, following more or less his own 
taste. The only sanctuary declared to have been built ac- 
cording to the heavenly pattern probably never existed 
except ' ' on paper. ' ' 4 The cities of refuge were all old sanc- 
tuaries where the old gods in one form or another continued 
to be worshiped, and safety was sought by murderers at the 
horns of the altars. 

Where gods are worshiped, there are sacred days. There 
are days dedicated to solar, lunar and astral deities; there 
are days when the lords of the harvest are praised for their 

*Cf. Castelli, Storia degV Israeliti, 1888, ii, p. 457; G. F. Moore, 
Ephod in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. 

2 Judges, viii, 27. 

"So for instance "Malachi,*' iii, 1. 

4 W. Shaw Caldecott in The Tabernacle, London, 1904, has at- 
tempted to prove that this pattern existed before Solomon's temple 
by the remarkable ruin called Eamet el Khalil, north of Hebron, 
which he regards as a sacred enclosure made "to screen an altar, as 
the hangings of the tabernacle courts screened its altar from curious 
and irreverent eyes," and seeks to identify these "monolithic (sic!) 
stone walls" as the Eamah of Samuel. The identification is improb- 
able, but the suggestion as to its original purpose deserves consider- 
ation. It is impossible to examine this curious structure without 
being impressed by its unique character and high antiquity. It is 
difficult to believe that it was ever higher than it is. Only excava- 
tions can determine its depth. It has no similarity to the sacred 
enclosures of the Negeb examined by the present writer. 



62 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

bounties. Of lunar origin are the festivals of the new 
moon and the sabbath, celebrating the appearance of the 
moon-god and the chief incidents of his course. The new 
moons were no doubt already observed in Arabia by the 
clans, afterwards forming a part of Israel, that occasionally 
worshiped at the mountain-shrine of the moon-god Sin 
(Sinai). Another survival from the nomadic period was 
probably the Passover, or Leap Feast, 1 when the first-born 
of man and beast were offered. If Yahwe cannot have 
these offerings in the wilderness, an early legend tells us, 
he will make good his loss by slaying all the first-born of 
man and beast in Egypt. 2 The three great annual feasts 
of Unleavened Bread, of Weeks, and of Booths, had orig- 
inally a purely agrarian character, celebrating the ingath- 
ering of barley and wheat in the spring, and the vintage in 
the autumn. Gradually they were transformed into me- 
morials of important events. It is not probable that any 
Hebrew ever connected with any of these feasts the thought 
of deliverance from sin through the atoning death of a 
coming Messiah, Still less were the festivals of the Chris- 
tian year suggested by them. Among the early Christians 
there were those who looked upon all sacred days, including 
the sabbaths, as carnal ordinances no longer to be observed 
in the new dispensation. 3 The New Testament furnish- 
intimation yet of an intention to substitute the first day of 
the week for the seventh as a sabbath, but it was quite 
natural that the ''venerable day of the Sun," like the 
Saturnalia and other Roman festivals, should in course of 
time be adopted for Christian use. 

Visions were seen by men and women in Israel as in 
other nations. These were perhaps for the most part gen- 
uine ecstatic experiences. But there is absolutely no ev- 
idence that any Hebrew prophet ever saw a being whom he 
recognized as the pre-existent Christ, or an object that he 
could possibly interpret as representing an invisible and 

1 So called from the gamboling of the young. 

2 Ex., vii, 16 ; x, 25 ff . ; xi, 1-8, 
8 Gal, iv, 10. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 63 

universal church. The "angel of the covenant" in Mai. 
iii, 1, is the celestial representative of Israel. The "angel 
of Yahwe" is, as Gunkel has seen, 1 a later substitute for 
Yahwe himself in the texts where he occurs, and there is 
no reason for supposing that this substitute was understood 
as being the Messiah. The "invisible church" was a cre- 
ation of sixteenth century theology in its dilemma between 
disowning a visible church that cast out heretics but also 
held rich treasures of spiritual life, and owning a visible 
church that was a voluntary association of persons having a 
common religious interest but therefore also excluded the 
little ones. This conception might have brought about a 
very lofty fellowship, had it not been chained to earth by 
an irrational view of "the Word and the Sacraments." 
Neither prophets nor apostles ever dreamed of this invisible 
church. The latter thought of a heavenly Jerusalem; but 
this was a city destined to come down to earth and be seen 
of all men, not a church existing only in the souls of 
believers. Yahwe was once supposed to dwell in the dark- 
ness of the stormcloud, and to reveal his real nature in the 
sheen of the lightning. Hence a mysterious fire betokens 
his presence in Abraham's sacrifice,- and in the burning 
bush. 3 Originally the ladder from Bethel to heaven was 
for the use of gods whose abode was in the atmosphere or in 
the stars. Such ladders are known to other religions. 
Angels are degraded gods. The temple described in Ez. 
xl-xlviii is just such a house as the author thought that the 
restored sanctuary in Jerusalem should be. There is no 
suggestion of anything but a material structure. In the 
case of Pharao and Nebuchadnezzar there is no hint that 
they were typical of the devil; and when the author of 
Daniel represented Antiochus IV as a beast 4 he did not know 

1 Genesis, 1901, p. 170 f. 

2 Gen., xv, 17. 

*Ex., iii, 2. Cf. Dillmann, Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus, 1880, 
p. 27. 

4 Cf . W. Bousset, Der Antichrist, 1895, and Schmidt in Journal of 
Biblical Literature, 1900, p. 23 ff. 



64 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

that this chaos-monster would later as a dragon be made the 
Antichrist and the Devil. 

. The reason why modern learning has abandoned this once 
so flourishing field of typology is readily perceived. It can 
find no place in history for many persons, events and insti- 
tutions regarded as types. What at one time seemed 
unique is now seen to be the common expression of religious 
feeling. To an adequately trained historic sense it is quite 
obvious that the men whose views of life are revealed in the 
Hebrew Scriptures can never have associated with their 
religious institutions any such thought of Christ and his 
church as the typical interpretation assumes. If this inter- 
pretation is modified so as to affirm only the divinely in- 
tended typical significance, not the consciousness on the 
part of the Old Testament saints of such a meaning, the 
redemptive value of a faith that looks beyond the type to 
the antitype is surrendered, and the utility of the type both 
to those who were ignorant of its importance and to those 
who no longer needed it may be questioned. 

Yet there is no error that does not contain an element of 
truth. Typology observed, compared and classified facts. 
It perceived the succession of analogous formations. It 
discerned the periodicity of history. It read the future in 
the light of the past, the history of earth in the light of 
heaven. This was a marked step forward in the direction 
of modern learning. "That is not first which is spiritual 
but that which is natural" is not precisely the doctrine of 
evolution, which affirms that the spiritual grows out of the 
natural, but it is the statement of a correctly observed fact 
essential to the truth of this doctrine. The division of his- 
tory into dispensations absolutely distinct, yet constantly 
suggestive one of another, may be artificial, but it is now 
generally recognized that, owing to the substantial identity 
of physical environment and of mental processes, different 
periods show a most remarkable analogy of development. 1 
It is impossible at present to share the fundamental assuinp- 

* Cf . the thoughtful address by Ulrich von "Wilamowitz-Moellen- 
dorff on Welt-pcrioden, Gottingen, 1897. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 65 

tion on which antiquity based its view of the world. Man 
considered his dwelling-place, the earth, as a copy of heaven, 
the abode of the gods. He looked upon himself as formed 
in the image of the gods. His life he regarded as a reflec- 
tion of the life of the gods, known through numerous myths. 
Particularly in the case of the heroes, this mythical lore 
furnished reliable legendary information. 1 Not only could 
the fate of individuals be read in the stars, but also that of 
the world itself. The incidents of the great cosmic year 
could be watched from its first moment to its last, or rather 
to the point where the circle closes to continue its round 
amid similar events. When in Gen. i, 2, man is made in 
the form of the gods and in I Cor. xv, 49, the existence of a 
man in heaven is proclaimed, whose image men on earth 
should bear ; when in Ex. xxv, 9, a heavenly pattern of the 
tabernacle is shown to Moses, and in Ileb. ix, 23, 24, the 
original sanctuary in heaven of which the tabernacle was a 
copy is purged by the Christ ; when the model of Zion with 
its walls is constantly in Yahwe's presence in Isa. xlix, 16, 
and this heavenly Jerusalem comes down to earth in Rev. 
xxi, 10, and when the first things, cosmogony and paradise, 
reappear as the last things in Revelation and elsewhere, 
these ideas ultimately rest upon an astrological conception 
of the world. To a more critical view it is sufficiently 
apparent that man has made his gods in his own image, 
used his acquaintance with the earth in mapping out the 

1 This has been rightly emphasized by Winckler, Gccchichte Israels, 
ii, 1900, p. 275 ff. The secret of the remarkable stability of tradi- 
tion does not lie in a miraculously retentive and conscientious mem- 
ory but in the unchangeableness of the celestial spectacle and of the 
myths it suggests. A limited number of mythical motives were 
always at hand to complete, correct or adorn any heroic tale. Valu- 
able as this observation is, it may easily be abused. We must guard 
against a new typology with its ready-made patterns in heaven play- 
ing havoc with our freshly acquired historic sense. The experiences 
of men that found their way to the sky in mythology have repeated 
themselves often enough in actual history without warranting a sus- 
picion that they have each time dropped down from heaven. Our 
main interest at present, however, is that this new point of view be 
occupied. 
5 



66 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

sky, filled the heavens with beings whose fortunes were 
known to him only from his own experience, and found in 
actually observed phenomena of nature 's life answers to the 
perplexing questions whence the world has come and 
whither its course will lead. 

The modern estimate of the universe recognizes a law of 
evolution according to which the life that now is has devel- 
oped out of the life that preceded it. Hence the similarity 
of persons, ideas, institutions and events in different ages. 
Baptism and eucharist remind of circumcision and pass- 
over; redemption through the blood of a human sacrifice 
resembles redemption through the blood of an animal sacri- 
fice; a Messiah who takes vengeance on his enemies, con- 
quers the nations, and exercises authority over them is not 
unlike a David or an Alexander Jannaeus; Sunday and 
Easter and Pentecost and Christmas are quite suggestive of 
Sabbath and Passover and Weeks and Dedication; angels 
and hypostases, mediating between Yahwe and the world, 
bring to mind the mediatory offices ascribed to the Christ. 
The reason for this is that the later, in part at least, was 
the spiritual offspring of the earlier. John the Baptist 
and Jesus were the heirs of Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and 
Jeremiah. Great men have their forerunners; important 
events cast their shadows before them. Times of spiritual 
quickening are preludes upon coming epochs. 

The periodicity of history does not violate any law of 
evolution. If Babylon and Egypt, Greece ar>d Rome, ex- 
hausted their creative strength, and younger, or more 
slowly maturing nations, taking up their work, had to run 
through similar stages of development, this was partly due 
to the natural limitations of all social life, partly to the 
fact that they entered only gradually into the spiritual 
heritage left by their predecessors. New periods are gen- 
erally ushered in by a strong civilizing element, like Greek 
philosophy or Jewish religious thought, breaking its 
national bonds and seeking universal dominion. The 
principle of rational selection then comes into play. Nor is 
the fact of decline and death an infringement on the laws 



THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 



67 



of evolution. Still to some extent under the spell of a 
cosmogonic myth earlier evolutionists occasionally spoke of 
the universe as developing from a protoplasm, created out 
of nothing, into ever higher and more complex forms of life, 
even as the acorn grows into an oak. It is well, however, 
not to forget that, if the oak comes out of the acorn, the 
acorn also comes from the oak, and that the sturdiest oak 
will some day pay its tribute to corruption. The nebula 
from which our solar system, with all the precious treasures 
that it holds, has come, was no doubt an acorn fallen from 
some sidereal tree of life. When at some distant day it 
shall have run its course, it may well be that it will leave 
behind some seed to grow up in its own time and place. It 
has not emerged out of nothing, it will not go out into noth- 
ing. Like the astrology of the past, the science of the 
present time looks steadfastly into the heavens where alone 
it can read the origin and destiny of our planet. And in 
the new light types appear again. To him that has eyes 
to see, each form of life, be it small or great, points forward 
to some other thing that is to come. 



CHAPTER IY 

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 

So far as documents give evidence, the expectation of a 
future deliverer of Israel, designated as the Messiah, seems 
to have appeared for the first time soon after the conquest 
of Palestine by Pompey in 63 B. C. It is found in the so- 
called Psalms of Solomon. The author of Ps. Sol. xvii, 
evidently a Pharisee, looks upon the rulers of the Hasmo- 
naean house as robbers and usurpers, to whom the promise 
to David did not apply and who were justly deposed and 
punished by Pompey. As to Isaiah Assyria was the rod 
of Yahwe's anger to be used for the chastisement of his 
people because of the sins of the house of David and the 
nobles of Judah, and then to be broken, so to this psalmist 
Rome is the divine instrument by which punishment is 
administered for the sins of the "godless" kings who have 
placed themselves on the throne of David, and which is then 
to be destroyed. For the rightful King of Israel, the Son 
of David, Yahwe's Messiah, 1 is coming in the appointed 
time to crush the unjust rulers, purge Jerusalem of all for- 
eign oppressors, destroy the impious heathen, bring to- 
gether under his scepter all Jews, hold the nations under 
his yoke, and reign as a guiltless 2 and God-fearing prince 
over a righteous and holy people. Ps. Sol. xviii praises 

1 Thus undoubtedly the author wrote in Ps. Sol., xvii, 36, ed. Swete, 
though a Christian copyist made it "Christ Lord." Cf. Kittel in 
Kautzsch, Die Pseudepigraphen, 1900, p. 147. 

'That "pure from sin" does not mean absolute sinlessness is 
evident from the manner in which the psalmist speaks of the Phar- 
isees. There will be no Bathsheba incident in the story of the Son of 
David. Though the Chronicler was silent, the Books of Samuel still 
spoke, and the blot on the great king's memory was keenly felt Cf. 
Ecclus., xlvii, 11. 

68 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 69 

him happy who shall live in the days when Yahwe's deliv- 
erance shall come. With his rod Yahwe's Messiah will 
in justice, wisdom and strength lead all his people in 
works of righteousness, through fear of God, and present 
them before the face of the Lord. 1 

The appearance of the Messianic hope at this time is 
quite natural. A century of martial prowess, independence 
and conquest had raised the highest expectations. The 
little people had not only indulged in a dream of empire ; 
it had imagined itself to be in the midst of the actual con- 
quest of the world. From these proud heights it had been 
hurled into the valley of humiliation. It had been rudely 
awakened from its dream to hear the tax-gatherer's voice. 
But this cruel disenchantment could not quench the spark 
of ambition. It flared up a-new, fanned by a fresh hatred. 
The persecuted Pharisees well knew the cause of the calam- 
ity. It was the Hasmonaean usurpation of the throne of 
David. To conquer the Roman power a genuine son of 
David was needed. Only to such an one could the divine 
promise in 2 Sam. vii, 12, apply. But while princes of 
the spurious house of David were numerous, real descend- 
ants of the old dynasty could not easily be found. In the 
beginning of the second century A. D. two Christian writers 
tried, both in vain, to discover the branches of David's 
family tree. 2 It was not so easy to find a living prince of 
this royal blood as in the days of Jehoiachin, Sheshbazzar, 
and Zerubbabel. 

But God would provide in his own good time. What he 
had promised, he would surely fulfil. And had he not 
promised? The sacred writings were searched to discover 
promises of the Messiah. Many Hasmonaean psalms had 
been incorporated in "Davidic" hymnbooks. If at one 
time "David" was used as an appellative to designate the 
king who took the place of David, it is not impossible that 
the ascription in some instances originally intended to 

1 The king is responsible to God for the righteous conduct of every 
citizen. 

'Matth., i, 1 ff.; Luke, iii, 23 ff. 



70 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

characterize the songs as referring to Yahwe's Anointed, 
his actually reigning vice-gerent on earth. But the Phar- 
isees would naturally interpret these psalms as productions 
of the great king in the past. The question would then 
arise, Did he speak of himself or of another ? In most cases 
the answer could not be doubtful. He spoke of a Messiah 
who was to come. 

Nor were there lacking passages in the prophetic rolls 
that seemed to describe this future Messiah. Zechariah'f 
Zerubbabel never sat upon the throne of his father David ; 
the prophet therefore must have had another descendant of 
David in mind when he spoke of "the Shoot." If this 
obvious case of a frustrated national hope connected with 
a prince of the old dynasty, so common in the beginning 
the reign of Darius Hystaspis, 1 could be pressed into serv- 
ice, it is no wonder that utterances of a similar origin and 
tenor that ultimately found their home in tl pro- 

phetic rolls lent themselves to the same use. A poem like 
Isa. ix, 1-6, celebrating the birth of a child destined for the 
throne of David, at a time when the people, living in a land 
of darkness, are under an oppressor's yoke and forced to 
bear his burdens, and the native kingdom needs to be set up 
and made strong, could no longer be seen against its natural 
background in the exile, since it had secured a place among 
the oracles of Isaiah. It was supposed to refer either to 
Hezekiah or the Messiah ; and as the name that describes the 
new-born king in spc as "a counselor of wonders, a god of a 
iwarrior, a father of a multitude 2 and a prosperous prince" 
did not seem to harmonize with the history of Hezekiah, the 
preference was given to the Messiah. It was readily a 
that in Isa. xi, 1-8, the fall of the dynasty is presnppoc 
the tree is down, the roots are left under ground. But 
only showed that "the shoot from the stock of Jen 
not belong to Isaiah's own time. He was a prophet, and 
could look from any given point in the future into a i 

*Cf. Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, 1SS4, i, p. 613 ff., Die 
Entstehung des Judenthums, 1S96, p. S2 ff. 
2 Read edah. 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 71 

more distant future. AYherever a hope was expressed of a 
change in the fortunes of Israel, of better things to come, 
straightway it was imagined that the author thought of the 
Messiah and his reign. Thus the Messiah was given a 
place among eschatological conceptions that had grown up 
without any reference to him. 

Out of the needs of a distressful time and the eager search 
in the Scriptures for the solace of divine promises, the idea 
of the Messiah as an eschatological magnitude seems to have 
been born. It was the culminating point where several 
independent tendencies in the life of Israel met. There 
had been a tendency to attach much importance to the 
anointment of rulers. From Saul to Zedekiah, from Joshua. 
son of Jehozadak, to Jason or Menelaus, from Jonathan 
to Aristobulus II, the rulers of the state, whether kings, 
high-priests, or priest-kings, had been consecrated with oil. 
Originally unction was an application of sacrificial fat. 1 
The pouring of oil upon the 1 stone, in which the 

numen dwelt, 2 was a sacrifice. At Medina a pro-Islamic 
worshiper washed and anointed his idoL 1 The kin lt was a 
holy being to whom this offering was made. 1I>' was like 
the Elohim knowing good and evil. With the anointment a 
spirit had entered him. 4 He was Bacrosancl ; his body 
must not be touched. 5 He was gradually removed from 
the gaze of the people, and seen only by his officials. The 
high-priest was the head of the state in post-exilic times. 
He was Yahwe's Anointed, a "son of oil," 7 having access 
to the celestial court. 8 In the Haamonaean age, the priest- 
king was regarded as Yahwe's Messiah, his "son," a 

»Cf. W. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, 1894, p. 384. 
2 Gen., xxviii, 13 ; xxxv, 14. 

8 Ibn Hisham quoted by W. Robertson Smith, 1. c., p. 233. 
4 1 Sam., xvi, 13. Cf. Weinel, Alaxluich unci seine Vcriiate, 1898, p. 
55 ff. 

• I Sam., xxiv, 10. 
8 II Kings, xix, 15. 
T Zech., iv, 14. 
8 Zech., iii ; 7. 



72 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 



"god," sitting on his throne. 1 It is easy to surmise 
.whither this tendency alone would have led. Had the 
dream of Daniel been realized, and the dominion over the 
nations been given to the saints of the Maccabaean period, 
the king of Israel would have been worshiped as a god, 
and Jerusalem rather than Rome would have become the 
seat of the imperial cult. 

There was also a tendency to repose an extraordinary 
faith in the dynasty founded by David. The reason for 
this was of course its remarkable longevity. A duration of 
four hundred and fifty years would have been a noteworthy 
achievement of a royal family in any age or nation. In 
view of the trying historical circumstances and the quick 
succession of dynasties in many of the surrounding nations, 
it must have appeared quite wonderful. It is not stra 
therefore, that even when Judah was finally threatened 
with destruction by the Chaldaeans a writer should have 
expressed the confidence that the house of David would 
continue to reign forever. 2 Nor is it a cause of astonish- 
ment that, as long as princes of this family lived and even 
received signal honors at the hands of Chaldaean and Per- 
sian kings, as was the case with Jehoiachin, Sheshbazzar 
and Zerubbabel, the hope of national independence should 
connect itself with these shoots from the old stock. The 
gradual disappearance of prominent members of this fam- 
ily no doubt gave room for independent aspirations. San- 
ballat may have been right 3 in declaring that prophet 
Jerusalem had announced as the coming king of Israel 
Nehemiah, 4 the governor, ca. 385-373 B. C. 8 In the next 

1 Pss., ii, xlv, lviii, lxxii, ex. 

8 II Sam., vii, 12, 14. Vs. 13 is an interpolation. Cf . Wellhausen, 
Die Composition des Hexateuchs und dcr historisehen Biichcr dct 
Alten Testaments, 1889, p. 257. 

3 Neh.,vi, 7. 

* Cf. Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, 1S9S, p. 46 ff., 
Schmidt, Nehemiah and his Work in the Biblical World, 1S99, p. 338. 

•For the date of Nehemiah in the reign of Artaxerx -non, 

cf. Marquart, Fundamente israelitischer und jiidischcr Gtschichte, 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 73 

century Simon became prince as well as high-priest, and 
Aristobulus I king, without belonging to the Davidic fam- 
ily. But the strength of the legitimist feeling may be 
seen both in the fiction by which the actual occupant of 
the throne was designated as David's descendant, and in 
the indignant protest of the Pharisees against this fiction. 
This loyalty to the legitimate line, with the increasing dif- 
ficulty of finding a leader who should also be a real 
ant of David, necessarily tended to remove into the future 
the Messianic king and to enhance tfa of his work. 

Of even greater importance was the general tenden< 
look beyond present conditions for better things or for 
worse. This had always been strong in IsraeL To the 
mass of the people in earlier times the "day of Yahwv" 
probably meant the day of God-given victory and pros- 
perity. The majority of prophets no doubt shared the 
same view. There were more Ilananiahs than Jeremiahs. 

A few of Yah we 's spokesmen, fa . looking into the 

future, could sec nothing but darkness. They were sooth- 
sayers, as were their colleagues. It is a strange misappre- 
hension of their character that seeks to disguise this fact. 
Their eyes were constantly turned toward the future. 
They watched for the footsteps of their Godj they looked 
for the coming of the day of Yahwe. But the approach of 
this day filled them with terror; the signs of the times indi- 
cated to them that he was coming to sit in judgment OH his 
people. Why must he come to his people with chastise- 
ment ? Because he loved and would save his own. For 
this reason, too, they must wield the scourge, Laying bare 
the social iniquity for which no sacrificial cult could atone. 
Jeremiah recognized no true prophets except the prophets 
of doom. 1 Such collections of oracles by Amos and Ilosea, 
Isaiah and Micah as were known at the time contained as 
yet no glowing descriptions of future happiness with which 
Hananiah might have confronted his critic. Men like Han- 

1896, p. 31 ff. ; Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of 
Ezra-Nchemiah, 1898, p. 8, 49; Schmidt, I. c, p. 334 ff. 
1 XXVIII, 8. 



74 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

aniah, who proclaimed good tidings to the people, and intro- 
. duced their oracles with a "Thus saith Yah we," were 
unquestionably quite sincere, and derived their information 
from the same source, the inspiration of Yahwe. 1 But their 
diagnosis of the disease and their appreciation of the his- 
toric situation were more defective. History justified the 
gloomier forebodings. The pre-exilic prophets had proved 
to be genuine sooth-sayers. To this fact they owed the high 
regard in which later generations held them, 2 and we owe 
the preservation of their oracles. 

After the deportation of parts of the people in 597, 586 
and 581 B. C, the prophecy of coming evil naturally ceased 
among the exiles, and the old, popular hope of the day of 
Yahwe revived. While some attached much value to the 
re-establishment of the dynasty, 3 others put the emphasis 
entirely on the overthrow of the present world-power, the 
return of the exiles, and the vengeance upon and authority 
over certain nations, and the prosperity to come. Perhaps 
the most influential writer of the period, the remarkable 
genius to whom we owe Isa. xl-xlviii, did not concern him- 
self about the Davidic family when Yahwe had plainly 
raised up a king (an anointed one) to accomplish his pur- 
pose, to destroy Babylon, send the exiles home, build the 
temple, and allow Jacob to lord it over his enemies. The 
same spirit prevails in the Songs of Zion in Isa. xlix-lv. 
Even when the future came to be seen in more son: 
colors by the authors of "Malachi," Isa. lvi ff. and .1 
eschatology developed without including any Messianic 
idea. The translated Elijah was indeed to come back from 
heaven before Yahwe could return to his temple, but for the 
Messiah there was as yet no place. The coming of Elijah 

^n the artificial distinction between false prophets and true. cf. 
J. C. Matth.es, Be pseudoprophetismo Hebraeorum, Leiden, 1859; 
Kuenen, Be profeten en de profetie onder Israel, Leiden, 1875, and 
the criticism of certain positions in this work by Pierson, Een studie 
over de geschriften van Israels profeten, Amsterdam 1 B 

2 Zech., i, 6. 

*Ez., xvii, 22 ff.; Isa., ix., 1-6, xi, 1-6; Amos, ix, 11 ff. ; Hag., ii 
Zech., iv, 6ff.; Jer., xxx, 8. 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 75 

is also referred to in Ecclus. xlviii, 10, without any sugges- 
tion in regard to the Messiah. 1 

This is also true of the apocalyptic literature that flour- 
ished in the Hasmonaean period. In Daniel, God estab- 
lishes his kingdom on earth without a Messiah. In heaven 
the Most High judges, the beast is slain, and the angel rep- 
resenting Israel receives the kingdom of the world; this 
angel (Michael) fights with the angel of Greece, and stands 
up in the end victoriously for his people. On earth 
Antiochus Epiphanes meets his death, the Jews obtain do- 
minion over the nations, and some martyrs and their perse- 
cutors rise from among the dead to long lives of glory and 
of shame. The celestial patterns have grown richer. But 
there is among them no Messiah. Next to the Ancient of 
Days, who alone exercises judgment, Michael, the dragon- 
killer, the judaized Mardnk, figures prominently. In the 
terrestrial copy, the drama of history, the succession of 
world powers, with their allotted periods of time, and the 
participation of saints raised from the dead are new fea- 
tures. But no king has anything to do with the founda- 
tion of the new empire any more than with the resurrec- 
tion of the dead. 

It is natural that the disposition to map out the future 
should have been encouraged by the stirring events of the 
Maccabaean insurrection, and also that there should have 
been no reason for putting into the future a Messianic 
king while Yahwe's anointed was actually sitting on the 
throne of David and engaged in restoring the kingdom 
and conquering the world. The atmosphere of the Psalter 
is saturated with the desire for divine judgment upon the 

1 A comparison of the Hebrew text with the Greek and, in this place, 
especially the Ethiopic version, suggests that the last lines should be 
read: 

"Blessed is he who saw thee (Elijah) and died for love of thee; 
As for us we shall surely live through thee. ' ' 

The passage is apparently an interpolation in "The Praise of 
Famous Men," a work written by Simeon, the son of Jesus, son of 
Eleazar ben Sira, as the colophon in the Hebrew indicates. See 
Schmidt, Ecclesiasticus, 1903, p. 174. 



76 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

heathen nations, and breathes a pathetic confidence in the 
dynasty occupying the Davidic throne. 1 Even among 
the Jews of Egypt this mood prevailed. Around the tem- 
ple at Leontopolis built by Onias III several colonies 
seemed to have settled, in which the language of Canaan 
continued to be spoken. An older prophecy against 
Egypt was here given an appendix written in apocalyptic 
style. 2 The present condition is predicted, and the future 
is also prophesied. It is evident that the recognition of 
Jonathan by Alexander Balas on the occasion of his mar- 
riage to Cleopatra 150 B. C. inspired the author's hopes. 
Jonathan is probably the deliverer of vs. 20 ; the smiting 
and healing of Egypt and the triple alliance of Syria, 
Egypt and Israel belong to the future. The Alexandrian 
Jews also looked eagerly into the future. Some fruits of 
their apocalyptic speculation they put into the spacious 
lap of the Sibyl. In the reign of Ptolemy VII Physeon 
(145-117) the author of the larger part of Book III of 
Sibylline Oracles prophesied to the nations what had 
already happened to them, that they might believe the 
more implicitly in the disclosures of things still to come. 
Having turned from Hellas, where Corinth has been 
troyed in 146 B. C, to the temple .of the great God and his 
people, he describes how God sends from the sun a king 
who puts an end to the bad war, killing some and mak- 
ing sure treaties with others, following not his own coun- 
sel but the decrees of the great God, and in whose reign 
the people is prosperous and the earth fruitful. 3 After this 
the kings of the nations assemble against Jerusalem, God 
himself destroys them and finally establishes his kingdom 
for all time over all men. 4 The king "from the sun." like 

x This eschatologieal mood has been well described by Stable, Die 
Messianische Eofnung im Psalter in Alademiseh und 

Abhandlungen, 1899, p. 39 ff. The political background of the 
Psalter is most satisfactorily depicted by Duhm, Die Psalm en, I 

■ Isa., xix, 16-25. 

8 Oracula Sibyllina, III, 652-660, ed. Ezach. 

4 III, 660 ff. 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 77 

the king "from heaven," 1 is an Eastern monarch from the 
standpoint of the Sibyl whose home is at Erythrae oppo- 
site Chios. The former is no doubt Simon, as the latter 
is Cyrus. That the Messiah cannot be meant 2 is clear 
from the fact that this king completely disappears when 
the author's real eschatology begins and plays no part 
whatever in the last things, while the description admir- 
ably suits the great contemporaneous leader of the chosen 
people. 

The supply of prophecy was quite equal to the demand. 
When Simon was appointed hereditary high-priest and ruler 
of the people, this action was made subject to prophetic 
ratification. 3 A psalmist in Jerusalem 4 and a Sibyllist in 
Alexandria soon furnished the necessary oracle. A highly 
advanced eschatology without the slightest siiL r .«:estion of 
a Messiah meets us in Isa. xxiv-xxvii. In the original 
apocalypse, written ca. 128 B. C., 5 the judgment of the 
world begins with the incarceration of the great powers 
in heaven and on earth, whereupon Yahwe appears in 
Zion, and offers a festive meal t<> all nations. Tin- Jews 
are then hidden while tie- judgment in, and when 

the great trumpet blows the scattered Israelites come to- 

1 III, 286. 

'Already in the edition of Koch (Opsopaeus), Paris. 1590. a note, 
possibly from the hand of Chateillon, in the margin opposite III, 286, 
indicates that the king "from heaven" is ' ! Christus, ' ' though the 
next lines are seen to refer to ' ' the restoration of the temple after the 
Babylonish captivity." The BfwJMlicI Interpretation is generally 
abandoned in this place, except possibly by Hilgenfeld, Jiidische 
Apokalyptik, 1857, p. 64. It is the great merit of Hilgenfeld to have 
determined the date of these apocalyptic sketches. But Yernes has 
convincingly shown that Cyrus is referred to in III, 286 j Eistoire des 
idees Mcssianiqucs, 1874, p. 59 f., and Colani, Jesus Christ et lea 
Croyances Messianiques de son temps, 1864, p. 25 ff., as well as 
Yernes, I. c, p. 64 ff ., has proved that III, 660, probably refers to 
Simon. 

3 / Mace, xiv, 46. 

*Ps., ex. 

• The situation was first recognized by Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 
1892. Cf. also Marti, Das Buch Jesaia, 1900. 



78 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 



gether to Zion. An interpolation describes the resurrec- 
tion of faithful Yahwe-worshipers through the dew of 
healing. 1 

Somewhat later in the reign of John Ilyreanus the earli- 
est part of the Book of Enoch seems to have appeared. 
In Eth. En. i-xxxvi a description is given of the jud^r: 
of angels and men. The angels who sinned with 
are imprisoned and finally punished; wicked meo either 
remain forever in Sheol to be punished there, or an* tr 
ferred to Gehenna, where their spirits are slain: 
righteous rise to eat of the tree of life in the 
lem, where they will beget many children, have plent; 
food, and grow old in peace. Neither in connection with 
the judgment nor in the new kingdom is 
siah. Between Daniel and this book the tremend 
has been taken of making Sheol a place of coi. 
ence, where some are punished for ever, a ntly 

need not be raised to life again to get their d 
En. lxxxiii-xc, written ca. 106 B. outline 

of Biblical history in which the antediluvians figure as 
cattle, the nations living after the flood I inds 

of beasts, and the Israelites ters 

are very plainly portrayed, however. One of the sh 
Elijah, is carried on high to be with Enoch. 3 Sev 
shepherds, the angels of the nations, originally their sods, 
are in charge of the sheep during the period of foreign domi- 
nation. This comes to an end when upon the lambs 
chasids) horns begin to appear (the sons of Mattathias). 
Particularly on one of these sheep (no doubt. John E 
canus) a great horn grows out that cann . by 

the ravens (the Syrians under Antiochus VII . Mich 
as scribe in the role of Nairn, ascertains that I 
twelve shepherds have destroyed more than their pr 
cessors, and a sword is given to the sheep. A thror. 
erected in Palestine, the final judgment is held, the new 

1 So the Greek version seems to have read. 

2 Gen., vi, 1 ff. 
8 LXXXIX, 52. 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 79 

Jerusalem is set up, martyrs are raised, all are invited and 
Jerusalem is filled with white sheep. The picture is ap- 
parently completed, when the figure of a white bull 
appears that is feared by all b.-asts and, when all other 
animals have become whit.' bulls also, is changed into a 
buffalo with black horns. 1 It U "ally under- 

that this bull is the M« issiah and ako admitted that he lias 
nothing to do Q< I when all is done is 

accounted for as "a literary reminii 
"the official traditional dogmatic repertoire of the - 
gogne.'* Vtm, ->~ and 3£ 'the lord of the b] 

rejoiced orer them' 1 ohablj an addition by a later 

hand. In Eth. En. rci-civ, probably written ea. 70 B. C, 
th<- description of the eighth and following w< i, 12- 

before tie- I k (xeiii, lb manifestly due 

to a displacement. Bn1 •■ itself mosi natural' 

plained, it* it originally was a marginal annotation, i 
has tin- appearance of being. If this conjectiu 
the eschatoloL'y would not diffei tially from that 

of sections already oonsidered. There is no Messiah in 
this booklet 

will be seen that v had d 

oprd before the Roman period, including such featni 
the judgment of angels and of in. 'ii. and their punishment 
in hell, the greal banqad in Zion, the r 

some of the dead, and the establishment of the king- 
dom of heaven, but i h. The 
son is obvious it is Yahwe himself who judges the 
world, prepares his meal for all nations, raises tie- dead 
and reigns on the earth. 
Veneration for tie- anointed ruler i state, Loyalty 

to the old dynasty, and it ion about the world's 

future, prepared the way for tin- Messiah. Roman op- 
ion caused a fusion of tl tents. An anointed 
king of Israel was needed, lint he must be a genuine son 

1 XC, 37, 38. 

'Char 168, The Book of Enoch, 1S03, p. 

•Beer, in Kautzsch, Pseudtp'ujrai'htn, 1900, p. 298. 



80 



THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 



of David. As no claimant to the throne of the legitimate 
line was known, he necessarily belonged to the future. 
But even as an eschatological magnitude his functions 
remained for a long time purely political, and the 1 
sianic hope was cherished only by some fractions of the 
people. This fact renders it difficult to believe that the 
Messiah conception developed under the influence of Per- 
sian thought. The Mazdayasnian Saoshyas had no polit- 
ical character. He was expected to raise the dead and to 
renew the world. 1 

The Egyptian Jews participated, if at all. to a very lim- 
ited extent in the new hope. That the trans', 
ix, 5 and Ps. ex, 3 (cix, 3 in the I had th- 

in mind, is not certain. In rendering the first thr 
of the name "angel of great counsel," the former folio 
the common custom of substituting "angel" for 
in translating "from the womb befn: lawn I fa 

begotten thee," the latter slavishly followed the text word 
for word. 2 It may have been during the second triumvi- 
rate (before 30 B. C), that a Jewish Sibyll: "ted 
that Rome's conquest of Egypt would be socceeded by the 
kingdom of "the immortal God, 1 it king," by 
the coming of "the holy ruler. ' ' v, _rn woul 
over the whole earth and last for all times. This holy 
ruler is supposed by some interpi 
but the context rather favors tfa that nor. 
intended than the "immortal God" and "great king."* 

*Yasht, xix, 92 ff. Cf. N. Sbderblom, La vie future dans to 
Mazdeisme, 1901. 

2 Whether "he is the expectation of nations" waa the original ren- 
dering in Gen., xlix, 10, may be doubted. In Sum., xxiv. 17, the Davidie 
house is meant. On the change of Agag into Gog, cf. Geiger 
schrift und Uebersetzungcn dcr Bibcl. 1S37, p. 366, and alao Schmidt, 
article "Scythiaris" in Encyclopaedia Biblica. The originality and 
age of either rendering are uncertain. 

*Oracida Sibyllina, iii, 46-6:2, 75-92. It is possible, howeTor, that 
Otho, Galba and Vitellius are meant rather than Antonius, Octavianua 
and Lepidus, that vss. 53, 54 refer to the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 
A. D., and that the widow is not Cleopatra but Rome, vss, 75 ff. So 
E. Preusehen, Paulus als Antichrist iu Zul - dxe Srmtmtm 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 81 

The Book of Wisdom, written about the beginning of our 
era, contains no allusion to the Messiah. Philo (ea. '20 
B. C.-50 A. D.) describes the return of the Israelites to 
Palestine "led by a divine or more than human appari- 
tinn." 1 He I lares that, if enemies should attack 

the future kingdom of | they would be scatt 

in that man would oome, according to the 

promise, who would subdue the nations, God granth 
the pioui auxiliaries in psychic 1 bodily 

_Mh.- The ";i; "is probably the divine 

glory, the Eftechin&h. B right in judging 

l'mm the in the 1 " that Philo the 

ol deli? through manly qualities rather than 

through i man. a roph- 

That hi I Zeeh, vi. \2 as 

an allusioD to the Logos, which he never identified with 
the Messiah, is significant Th in, prob- 

ably written in 1. 70 A. I).,' SHOWS DOthi] 

a Messiah. 

d in Palestine the Biessiani d in the 

Psalt lolomon mifestly Car from common. 

In tli the l»" teded 

there naturally was no sympathy with such 

aft, vol. II, IQO, p. 1715 AT. ill circum- 

tit by the Beliar who comes 
from tho Sebastenes. This name for the Samaritans is not possible 
■ad vs. 63 ff. must have DMB written by a Chi 

This I also doubtful. Housset has recently sug- 

gested a renVrtion of " ;, - in III. 

luliyion <lis Jurfcntums im Neutestamcntlii h> n Zntalttr, 1008, p. 212. 

1 De Extcratiunibus, ad Mang.-y, HI. 

*De proemus II, 12112s (»,1. Mangey). 

• The Messiah of ti . 38. 

4 In Vita Mos 

" So I I'he Book of the Secrets of Enoch, 189G, p. 20. The 

only real reason ad du ced is the references to sacrifices in lix, 2. But 
ire so slight and so easily explmil author's guise that 

there can be no real assurance as to this u\. 
6 



82 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

illusions. But neither the Book of Jubilees 1 nor the As- 
sumption of Moses i-vi; 2 written in the beginning of our 
era, mentions the Messiah, though there were natural 
occasions for doing so. The original Testaments of the 
Twelve Patriarchs may have received their first Jewish 
interpolations in the same period. There is no reference 
to the Messiah in them. But Michael is described as "the 
mediator between God and man." 3 In an apocalyptic 
fragment of Jewish origin incorporated in the book of 
Kevelation, 4 and dating, as Wellhausen has seen, 5 from the 
siege of Jerusalem, a woman in heaven, clothed with sun, 
moon and stars, brings forth a man child that is immedi- 
ately carried to God, and the dragon is cast by Michael 
from heaven to earth, where he pursues the woman, who 
escapes, and her kin for three years and a half. Ulti- 
mately this figure of a queen of heaven with her ceh 
child no doubt belongs to the realm of mythology as much 
as Michael and the dragon. 6 The earthly that the 

11 'And one of thy sons" in Jubilees, xxxi, 18, is clearly an inter- 
polation. It may refer to David, as Charles thinks, Doctrine of a 
Future Life, 1899, p. 246. 

2 The Assumption of Moses consists of an original part i-vi, and 
an appended passage that probably dates from a much later period 
when the rebellion of Simon bar Kozeba had already been crushed. 
The description of fearful persecutions does not give the impression 
of being a work of imagination based on the sufferings under Antio- 
chus Epiphanes. The crucifixion of Jews is a peculiarity of the later 
persecution. The Taxon, ix, may be Jehudah ben Baba, who fled 
with his seven disciples. The second cruel punishment at least pre- 
supposes the destruction in 70 A. D. Probably that and the one in 
135 A. D. are meant. 

8 Dan., vi. 

4 XI, 1, 2;xii. 

*Slcizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, 1899, p. 225 ff. 

'Ninib, Ishara's son, is the rising sun and also the planet Saturn; 
Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier, 1890, pp. 136 ff Ml 457 ff 
Yaldabaoth, -Ban's son," the god of the Jews, is "'also 'saturn! 
Ongen Contra Celsum, vi, 31, Epiphanius, Adv. Haer., xxvi ,10 Bau 
seems to be the counterpart of Gula, Ninib's consort (Jensen); but 
Ban has apparently also taken Ishara's place. Was cither of these 
goddesses ever identified with Ishtarf Epiphanius relates (ed. Din 






THE JEWISH MESSIAH 83 

author desires to symbolize are in the main clear. Deliv- 
erance will come after the short but trying time prophe- 
sied by Daniel. Rage as it may, Rome will not be able to 
destroy the remnant that has escaped its clutches, nor to 
touch the sanctuary itself in Jerusalem, nor to prevent the 
coming of the Messiah. This Messiah has been born in 
the Jewish community, but has already as a child been 

lated. A similar idea appears in the Babylonian 
Talmud, 1 where the Messiah is a deceased descendant of 
David, who rises from the dead to accomplish the deliv- 
erance of Both of these notions were due to the 
conviction that Gfod would provide a genuine son of David. 
A translated hero would naturally return on the elouds of 

ii. Thus in tie- Apoealypse of Barueh, written after 

the fall of Jerusalem, the Messiah ealed," 1 and 

''returns in glory'* to rule until the world of corruption 

is at an end, 1 sparing some and putting others to death. 1 

The Fourth Book written in 97 A. I)., exhibits 

similar ChristologieaJ conceptions, In sii, 28ff., God de- 
clares that his s«»n, the Messiah, will be revealed during 
four hundred years, ami then die together with all men, 
whereupon the presenl aeon will close ami the new sge 

ii, 483) that on the 'lay of the WUktt n Chaamu and 

her son Dusares were praised, ami that was done in Klusa 

on that night. In Klusa leH (halazath, or \ .d h»-r 

temple. The celestial virgin is probably Ishtar — Venus, and tho 
M-lar d ib, Yaldabaoth, I> I her Bon. 

lUiirutjc zur St mi' \iffiomge9chickte, lSss, y. 107. On 

Yaldabaoth. rhrift 

fur Wim nschaftlichc T)< 1 S63, 4C0 ; Baudissin, Studicn cur 

Semitisclit n M{0iOM*fMdMdU Iff.; Dietrich, Abraxas, 

1891, pp. S, 

1 Sanhcdrin, 98 b. 

the discriminating observations of Louis Ginzberg, Monat- 
schrift fur tUschiihtc und WJueMChaft dts Judcntltu.na, 1S98, p. 
541 ff. 

•XXIX, 3; xxxis, 7. 

•XXX, 1. 

6 XL, 3. 

•LXXI1, B-e, 



84 THE'PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

begin after seven days of silence with the resurrection of 
the dead and the appearance of the Most High on the 
judgment-seat. The woman, 1 who brings forth a child, 
loses him as she is about to give him a wife, and flees into 
the wilderness, is none else than the woman of Rev. xii ; 
the presumption is that originally the son was also the 
Messiah, though the present text of x, 44 ff. explains him 
to be the city itself, or the temple. The lion that 
the eagle is declared to be the Christ who 1 
served for the end from the seed of David, and will ap; 
to annihilate the wicked enemy and * :iant 

of the people joy until the judgment earn* 
man-like, or angelic, being that rises from the sea, and 
flies with the clouds of heaven destroying an army with 
the fire that issues from his mouth, is explained t«» 1> 
son of God, through whom creation will med and 

a new order established. 3 It is emphatically 
God is not to judge his creation through any one.* While 
this apocalypse in other respectfl ill e of 

early Christian thought, it still prote^ bing 

judgment to the Messiah. 

This step had apparently been taken, not indeed in 
apocalypse ascribed to John, but in t • works of a 

similar character that probably appeared, like it, i: 
reign of Domitian, viz.: Ethiopic Enoch xxxvii-lxxi and 
The Wisdom of God. The former d< 
second vision of Enoch. It is composed of three horta 
discourses and an appendix. This work has D04 
down to us in its original form. We possess only an Ethi- 
opic translation of a Greek translation, or of the prob- 
ably Aramaic original. How accurately these translators 
did their work, and what changes may have been intro- 
duced by copyists, cannot be determined. It would be 
a miracle, if a piece of writing that offered Bach peculiar 

1 IX, 43 ff . 
2 XII, 31 ff. 
8 XIII, 1 ff . 
4 V, 56; vi, ft 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 85 

temptations should have escaped the common fate of 
books. Yet it is not likely that the universally admitted 
longer interpolations were made by the Greek translator 
or subsequent to his time. It 1. been recognised 

that En. xxxix, 1, 2a, liv, 7, lv, 2, lx, lxv, ldxix, 25 U 
tracts from a lost Apocalj | "all. Charl.-s is probably 

right in assuming that xli, 3-8, xliii, and xliv, haw OOme 
from the same source. lie also rightly regarda xlii, 1, lxx 
and lxxi as later additions. But what remains is not the 
work of one hand. The original vision probably con- 
I xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix. !, xli, 1, 2, xlv, 1, 2, 5, 

G, xlvii, xlviii, 8-10, liii, 1-"), liv. 1-ti. lv. :{. 1 \ i . lvii, lviii (lxiii, 

lxiv). In this work Qod alone is the judge, and tip 
no Messiah. This i»«»<»k leemi to haw been annotated and 
expanded by a writer who looked forward t<» the revela- 
tion of a ehoaen i nstrum ent, not m< miah- 
men1 of the oationa, hut judgment of the world, a 
man destined t<> sit up-. ii i is throne t<» judge angeli 
and men (xh lvi. li, liii, 6, lv. 4. lx i. B, :♦ . There 

can be little doubt that this writer had in mind the Ifes 

siah, and that he understood the being like a man in 

Dan. vii, 13, to be the Messiah. Y. t the manuscript, as 

hf Left it, eannot y.-t h ny onmistakable 

anie term, nnee the author of eh. lxxi evidently 

rded "the man who has righteousness" of xlvi. 

itial representatiTe in Dan. rii, 13, 
had not been mentioned by name. Originally he wi 
doubt Michael. Hut there s m for conjecture: he 

! !>.• the Messiah, or a translated hero like Enoch. 
Tie- conception of the Messiah as ju'lL r <' of the world may 
be due t<> Christian influence, hut the author of th<\s<* 
inter] - is not likely to have been a disciple of 

i, In that ease he would probably have referred to 
the sufTVrin.L:s of the ICessiah. A Christian hand may 
have cautiously retouched the picture in chs. xlviii, lxii 
and lxix. 26 If. 

In Luke xi. 40, a work called "The Wisdom of God" 
is quoted. In this hook the esoteric wisdom of the apoca- 



86 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

lyptic seer is personified and predicts the future. Strauss 1 
has convincingly shown that not only the prediction of 
vengeance for the blood of martyred prophets from Abel 
to Zechariah the son of Barachiah, slain during the siege 
of Jerusalem (Jos., Bellum jud. iv, 335, 343), but also the 
woe upon Jerusalem, so often visited in vain by the divine 
wisdom, that immediately follows in Matth. xxiii, 37 ff., 
was drawn from this source. It is altogether probable 
that the apocalyptic fragment that follows in Matth. xxiv, 
4-36 (Mk. xiii, 5-32; Luke xxi, 8-36), and 
work of xxv, 31 ff. were likewise extracts from the same 
work. Strauss assumed a Christian authorship for the 
"Wisdom of God." But the statement, "Yooi 
left unto you desolate," do* 

remain so; it only mentions what to the author is mani- 
festly a very sad fact of experience. There is nothin 
the description of the last dj 
or the coming of the man on the cloud, that 
Christian. The revelation of the future given by 
John on Patmos may have inspirt m to use 

this material for another Apocarj The fur- 

ther development of certain ideas in En. xxxvii 
the Wisdom of God by the disci -ally 

caused a reaction against them in rabbinic 

Josephus was unquestionably familiar with t: 
sianic idea. It is possible, however, that under the i: 
ence of his Essene (?) teacher, Banna, an 
the hopeless struggle, he had learned to look 
a quiet possession of the land by Israel and 1 of 

Judaism throughout the world.- even thong* it < 
under Roman suzerainty, 3 rather than to a perso- 
siah. Yet he was far from a consistent qnietk 
in his heart have cherished hopes with which he did not 
care to make Vespasian acquainted. It is a pity that he 

1 Jesu Weheruf iiber Jerusalem in Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftlicks 
Theologie, 1863, p. 84. 

2 Ant., iv, 125, ed. Niese. 
*De beVo jud., vi, 313. 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 87 

should have remembered that he was nothing but a his- 
torian just as he was on the point of explaining what the 
"little stone' ' in Daniel 1 signified. 2 In describing the 
insurrections led by Judas, son of Ezekias, 3 (ca. 4 B. C), 
Judas the Galilaean, 4 (ca. 7 A. D.), the Samaritan in Tira- 
thana 5 (ca. 37 A. D.), Theudas 6 (ca. 46 A. D.), the Egyp- 
tian (ca. 58 A. D.) and others, Joeephm may have inten- 
tionally refrained from ehaimeteruring them as Ifendanio 
mo 7 It is qui Me that one or another of 

th<'s.- "s«)^(•.•^.•^s ,, and "prophets," ai he called them, may 

have )> M.-ssiah, and regarded himself 

as such. Aeti v. I that th of 

Theudas. Haoarath 1 Kmghl to identity the Samaritan 
of Ant. xviii, 85 ft with Simon Magna The hk( 
characi Simon v. y doubtful; neither II 

Mace, ii, 5 flf. nor Ap, Bar. vi. r elear that even the 

Jew ted the Men therthai prophet like 

Jeremiah, to poinl out the pla< f tin- hidden • the 

late itory in John it, in irhieh the profound philoaophj 
the Fourth io beautifully symbolised, fur- 

nish ink betiefa among the Samari- 

tans of the Eid the age of the Ta'eb eoneep- 

tion cannot be determined with any eertainty. Tet it is 
imt impossible that th. d in Tirathana 

looked upon their "B mint," 

e<»m.' baeh from heaven, to which he had been tranalal 
to establish a kingdom greater than of 

(lamala. s.-.-ms to fa irty of 

the X.-alots. His sons and a grandson continued his oppo- 

1 On the high value he placed upon the book of Daniel, cf. Schmidt, 
article Bible Canon, Critic,! | tin- Jewish Encyclopaedia ami 

article Bible in the New International Encyclopaedia, 

•Ant.,x, 210. 

*De hello jud., ii, 56. 

*De bello jud., ii, 118. 

• Ant., xviii, 85 flf. 
•Ant., xx, 97 f. 
'Ant., xx, 160. 

• Neutestamcntliche Zcitgeschichte, 1879, I, pp. 382-386. 



88 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

sition to Rome. But there is no intimation that he was 
considered as the Messiah, nor indeed that such a being 
had a place in his "philosophy." On the other hand, it 
is entirely probable that during the siege of Jerusalem 
one or another of the leaders felt himself called to the 
Messiahship and fired the enthusiasm of his followers with 
Messianic expectations. 1 

The best authenticated instance of a Jewish Messiah 
is that of Simon bar Kozeba. 2 Of him alone can it be said 
that he was not only recognized by his people as the 
siah at a time when the Messianic idea was fully d 
and regarded himself as such, but also succeeded in 
achieving temporarily the redemption of 
thus in part realizing his ideal. Simon's home may I 
been in Modein, 3 and he was undoubtedly inspired by the 
story of the Hasmonaean insurrection. When cir 
cision had been prohibited and an attempt IB build 

a temple to Jupiter in Jerusalem, now called Aelia ( 
tolina, this heroic soul, like Mattathias of old, felt 
call to lead his people against the oppressor. When 
cess crowned his efforts, and even the 
him as Bar Kokeba, "son of the Num. 

xxiv, 17), and as "king Messiah," 4 when the 

priest stood by his side, and the people recognized hi] 
"Israel's prince," 5 how could he doubt tl. 
chosen him for the deliverance of Zion ? He was in 
no descendant of David. But the title ' 
could be taken in a general - 
of David, a king sitting upon David's throne, as well a^ in 

1 Matth., xxiv, 24 f . 

2 Bousset thinks that his home was in Kokaba, referring to Julius 
Africanus, as quoted in Eusebius Hist. EccL. T. " Beliffion 

des Judentums, 1903, p. 211). But this is probably a misunderstand- 
ing of the name given him by K. Akiba (Taanith, (j 

°His uncle Eleazar lived in Modein, cf. W. Baeher, Dm dgmiu dtr 
Tannaiten, 1883, p. 194 ff. Modein is probably the modern El 
Medyeh, near Lydda-El Ludd. 

4 Taanith, 68d. 

6 Cf. the coins in Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1SS1, pp. 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 89 

the narrower sense of a lineal descendant always affected 
by the opposition. 1 Concerning the preexistence of the 
Messiah opinions differed. Some held that all souls had 
existed before their birth, yet no one could remember 
such a previous existence. The reaction against thoughts 
peculiar to the followers of Jesus had probably removed 
some of the transcendental aspects of the Messianic ideal. 
The Messiah expected even by an Akiba was just the kind 
of man that Simon was. When the rebellion was crushed 
by Hadrian in 135 A. D., the fearful disenchantment 

led itself in curses upon 8 head. He was sneer- 

ingly i to as D lie." Bad ; 

he would have remained "son of the star 91 Syna- 

gogue and church vied with each other in calling him a false 
ah, an impostor, a liar. On bo 1 prej- 

a prevailed. 1 In one circle, the establishment of a 
Jewish kingdom of righteousness by the sword of a 
mighty hero whose picture was found on many a ps 

Bible was ardent 1. bnt patriotism was appar- 

ently no lorn. rded as a virtue when it failed to 

put an end to op] a. In anoth tnon was 

expected to measure himself by the ideal of a lamb will- 
ingly Led to slaughter, ■ Don-resistan1 teacher of onh 
love, an ideal that the immediate disciples of Jesus never 
ned of associating with the Afteasiahship until after 
crucifixion of the Ms Simon miscalculated 

1 < f . P* S-.L, xvii. 4, .", 21. Jochanan ben Torta in Taanith. 
Mark, xii, 35-37 (Matth. xxii. I). Th.- 

put upon the lips of Jesus in the last of these pas» 

o opponents of the claims made for Jesus by his discipl.-s in- 
sisted upon lineal descent and that the defenders did not fed ham- 
!>y the fact that Jesus was not a descendant of David and were 
at no loss to find Scriptural support for their view. No aspirant to 
the Messiahship is likely to have been seriously inconvenienced by his 
pedigree. It was a handy weapon, however, of the opposition, and the 
genealogists in Matth., i, and Luke, iii, sought to wrest it out of the 
hands of the enemy. 

1 Of . the wise words of Hausrath, Xcutcstamentliche Zcitgcschichte , 
1879, I, p. 203 f. 



90 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 



Hadrian's strength, as Kossuth did the combined forces 
of Hapsburgs and Romanoffs. But there is something 
sublime in the bold defiance of the divine Caesar on the 
throne of the world by the hero of a petty oppressed peo- 
ple. The Messianic ideal was a political one, but should 
not for this cause be condemned. 

The hope of deliverance could not perish. It voiced 
itself in the Shemoneh Esreh. 1 What was needed was a 
genuine descendant of David (14, 15), and a restoration 
of the cult (17). This expectation also found expression 
in a psalm interpolated in the Hebrew text of the Wisdom 
of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, between 51 :12 and 13. Be- 
side the budding of the horn of the house of David the 
choice of the sons of Zadok is mentioned. A legitimate 
high priesthood was not less important than a legitimate 
royalty of the Davidic line. Eleazar is mentioned on the 
coins of "Jerusalem Delivered" by the side of Simon, as in 
earlier days Joshua by the side of Zerubbabel. But 
neither Eleazar nor Simon bar Kozeba could quite satisfy 
the sticklers for legitimacy— when their regime had come 
to an unfortunate end. 2 In the reign of Antoninus Pius 
(137-161 A. D.) Trypho told Justin Martyr" that all Jews 
believed that the Messiah would be a man born of men, 
and that he would be anointed by Elijah. Celsus (ca. 178 
A. D.) puts his arguments against Christianity on the lips 
of a Jew. How far the Jew represents Celsus, rather than 
Celsus the Jew, is doubtful. But in the main the philoso- 
pher probably represents fairly well the average Jewish 
opinion of the day. This is also shown by the Targums. 
These Aramaic paraphrases by different interpreters no 
doubt give a fair idea of the opinions prevailing from the 

*Tlie Palestinian recension of these "Eighteen Prayers" found in 
a geniza in Cairo was published by Seheehter in Jewish Quarterly Be- 
view, 1898, pp. 654-659. Together with the Babylonian reeensien it 
has been reprinted by Dalman, Die Worie Jesu, Leipzig, 1S9S. p. 
299 ff ., where also a number of other prayers and hymns referring to 
the Messiah are given. 

2 See Schmidt, Ecclesiasticus, 1903, pp. sxri, rsvii, 176 ff. 

• Dial. c. Try ph., xlix. 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 91 

first to the seventh century of our era. Unfortunately, 
it is impossible to date with accuracy the different tar- 
gums. It is significant, however, that the unquestionably 
very late Targum Jerushalmi contains a much larger 
number of Messianic interpretations than Targum On- 
kelos, 1 among them the interesting reference to the Mes- 
siah, son of Ephraim (to Ex. xl, 11). Other sources des- 
ignate him as Messiah, son of Joseph, and indicate that he 
will be revealed in Galilee, gather the ten tribes, fight 
against Gog and Magog, and die by their sword for the 
sin of Jeroboam, 2 or that he will be put to death and after- 
wards be seen by his murderers, in accordance with ZecL 
xii, 10. 3 The origin of this conception of two Messiahs is 
very obscure. Levy 4 thinks that, after the death of 
Simon bar Kozeba, the people were told that he had 
indeed been the Messiah, but only an auxiliary Messiah, 
the real Son of David being in the future. The sugges- 
tion of Merx 5 that the idea is intelligible only as a compro- 
mise of two different Messiah-conceptions is more likely 
to be corect. With Bertholdt, he thinks of the Samaritan 
Ta'eb, and assumes that he was the survival of a Messiah 
earlier than the Judaean Son of David. But of such a 
Messiah there is no evidence, and the Son of Joseph who 
is to appear in Galilee has retained no feature connecting 
him with the Shechemite community. Possibly the com- 
promise was with the Ebionites, a concession made to the 
followers of Jesus before the final separation. "Your 
Messiah, Joseph's son, may indeed appear in Galilee, as 

1 17 in Targum Jerushalmi to 2 in Targum Onkelos. 

'Cf. Targum to Canticles, iv, 5, and the rabbinic literature quoted 
by L. Bertholdt, Be Christologia Judaeorum Jcsu Apostolorumque 
aetate, Erlangen, 1811, p. 77 ff. 

• In the Babylonian Talmud, Sulka, 52a, this passage is referred to 
Messiah ben Joseph by E. Dosa, who lived in the second century, 
A.D. 

'Neuhebraisches und Chaldaisches Worterbuch iiber die Talmudim 
und Midraschim, III, 271. 

*Ein Samaritanisches Fragment uber den Ta'eb oder Messias, Lei- 
den, 1893, p. 20. 



92 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAKETH 



you expect, but only to perish again because of idolatry 
to give place to the real Messiah, David's son." Prophe- 
cies, like Isa. viii, 23, may have forced this concession. 
Joseph and Ephraim being interchangeable, the complex- 
ion of the whole idea would readily change, and the forma- 
tive Christian influence would be forgotten. Targum 
Jonathan to Zech. iv, 7, teaches that the name of the Mes- 
siah was mentioned from of old. Whether this implies 
a real preexistence from eternity, is doubtful. This Tar- 
gum also refers a part of the description of the Servant of 
Yahwe in Isa. liii to the Messiah, but the sufferings are 
not ascribed to him. 

It was a victorious warrior and a. just ruler, a king 
restoring independence to Israel and giving it dominion 
over the world, that the Jews of the Roman period pr 
for and expected. The prevailing thought did not con- 
nect with him either the creation of the world or the res- 
urrection of the dead and the final judgment, still 1 
redemption of mankind through vicarious suffering. 
Even the thought of making the conqueror of the nations, 
the theocratic king, Yahwe \s son and viee-gerent on earth, 
also judge of the world was scarcely conceived under 
Christian influence 1 before it was Anally reject 1. A 
rigid monotheism rendered it impossible for th< 
Messiah to become more than a man. The New T< 
ment reveals substantially the same beliefs concern in i: the 
Messiah both on the parts of the opponents and the de- 
fenders of the Messiahship of Jesus. But in addition to 
these, grafted upon this stock, there appear ideas 
utterly foreign to the Jewish thought of the M< 
are the conceptions of a suffering and atoning Saviour, a 
Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world, a 
and archetypal man, medium of creation, redemption, 
resurrection and final judgment, a Son of God in the 
Greek metaphysical sense, a Philonian Lo^ rnacling 

among men. Out of the union of all these elements the 
1 Interpolations in En., xxxvii-lxxi, and possibly Wisdom of God, 



THE JEWISH MESSIAH 93 

Christ of the ecumenic creeds evolved. He had little 
more than the name in common with the Jewish [Messiah. 
Neither was ever dreamed of by the men whose thoughts 
are revealed in the Old Testament. Both present ideals 
of humanity that contain elements of permanent ethical 
value. The Jewish Messiah did not live in vain in the 
hopes of those who looked for Israel's consolation; nor 
did he die in vain where in the life of a scattered and per- 
secuted people he left as an heir the dream of ao united 
human race, 1 and among earth's most progressive nations 
a desire for the leadership of Israel 'fl it prophet 

1 It falls outside the scope of the present study to sketch the devel- 
opment of the Messianic idea in Judaism from the rei^n of Hadrian 
to the present time. But it may be remarked that Jewish and Chris- 
tian scholars ou^ht to be able by this time to break the spell of a 
same and to accord ■ fair judgment I litieaJ lead 

reformers, mystics and prophets who from Simon bar Kozeba to 
Babatai Zewi hare i m others the title of the 

Messiah. Cf. Hamburger, article Mcssiasse in Beal-Encyllopacdie 
des Judentums, and Schmidt, article Mtssiah in the .Y< w InU r national 
Encyclopaedia. These Messianic movements should also be more 
closely examined in the light "f similar phenomena la the Mast 
which is so prodigal with its Saoshyants, Imams, Mahdis, prophets 
and revealers. 



CHAPTER V 

THE SON OF MAN 

As long as the Gospels were read in the light of the creeds, 
the term "son of man" was naturally understood as indi- 
cating the human nature assumed in the incarnation by the 
second person of the Trinity. 1 When the Biblical books 
began to be studied with a view to ascertaining the thought 
of the writers, rather than with a more or less frankly 
avowed purpose of discovering proof-texts for the support 
of an already formulated system of doctrine, a number of 
perplexing questions arose touching the origin, use and 
significance of the phrase. Did Jesus invent it as a designa- 
tion of himself or find it asaMessi&nie titiel In the former 
case, did he use it to intimate that he was the man par excel- 
lence, the ideal man, or that he was a mere man. nothing but 
a human being? Did he coin it as an i n of what he 

thought the Messiah ought to be, or as a means of distin- 
guishing himself from the Messiah currently expected? 
the latter case, was its source in the book of Daniel, or in 
some other place? AVas it a commonly understood 
sianic title, or was it known only to a few as a name of the 
Messiah? In either case, was there a - imificance in 

the word "son" or did "son of man" mean only "man"? 

1 Cf. for instance one of the best Mediaeval interpreters, Nicolas de 
Lyra, Biblia Sacra, Venice, 1588, Vol. ii, p. 43, to Matth.. I 
This passage is understood to affirm that blasphemy again^ 
humanity is not as unpardonable as that against his divinity. In 
Matth., xvi, 13, Christ is interpreted as confessing concerning himself 
the humble fact of his humanity, while his disciples understood his 
deity. A curious gloss to "men" in Matth., xvi, 13, is "homines 
sunt qui de filio hominis loquuntur, Dti cnim qui deitatem intelli- 
gunt." For a convenient summary of patristic and Mediaeval opin- 
ion see Appel, Die Selbstbc~eichnung Jcsu, 1896. 

94 



THE SON OF MAN 95 



Might the term have different meanings in different con- 
nections? Should the discussion be confined to the Greek 
form, or would it be justifiable to look for the actual 
Aramaic words used by Jesus, and to inquire as to the man- 
ner in which these would naturally be employed and under- 
stood ¥ 

The first of these questions to receive serious considera- 
tion seems to have been the one mentioned last, though its 
importance for the solution of the entire problem has not 
been recognized until recently. Gilbert Genlbrard, 1 com- 
menting on Matth. xii, 82, explained "son of man" as 
"man" and with great propriety referred to Eli'fl words in 
I Sam. ii, 25 as ex p re s si ng the same sentiment. Sins 
against men may be pardoned, but Dot sins against God. 
Independently Hugo Grotius 1 reached the same oonelnsion. 
He also perceived that in Matth* xii. 8 the conclusion evi- 
dently must be, "Therefore man is lord even of the sabbath." 

Pointing to Mark ii. 28 as giving the more original ooi 

tion, he showed that the argument would hi -y, if 

the "son of man" were interpreted as the Messiah, and 
called attention to the faet that at the tin had 

neither declared himself to be the Messiah, nor been willing 
to have his discipbs proclaim him as such. The natural ex- 
planation he found in the Hebrew phn Adam which 
simply means "man." GrotiuB refrained, h from 
further application of the principle. A third Orientalist, 
Johann Adrian BoHen, 1 following the hint given by Grotius, 
carefully examined the use of this term in Hebrew, Svriac, 
Arabic, Samaritan and Ethiopic. His conclusion was that 
"son" everywhere in this connection was only a means of 
designating the individual of the species, and that in Matth. 
ix, 6, xii, 8, xii, 32 the term should be translated "man," 

l De S. Trinitate libri ITT, Paris, 1569, quoted by Arnold Meyer, 
Jesu Mutter sprache, 1895, p. 142. 

■ In Critici Sacri, Vol. VI, 1698, cols. 445, 446. 

• Der Bericht des Matthaeus von Jesu dem Messia, Altona, 1792, 
quoted by A. Meyer, I. c. It is the merit of Arnold Meyer to have 
brought to light the testimony of these three Orientalists. 



96 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH 

while in other passages it should be interpreted in the light 
of the Aramaic bar nasha as an indefinite pronoun, "one," 
"some one." H. E. G. Paulus, 1 as Theodore Beza 2 before 
him, explained "the man" to mean "this man who stands 
before you," a substitute for the personal pronoun "I," like 
the Oriental "thy servant," "thy handmaiden." 0. F. 
Fritzsche 3 followed Paulus, but added the important sugges- 
tion that a number of passages containing the term belonged 
to a later time, when it had taken on a Messianic significance. 
Kuinoel 4 accepted the interpretation of Matth. xii, 8 given 
by Grotius and that of Matth. x, 23 given by Beza and 
Bolten. 

A theory assuming that Jesus habitually used an indefi- 
nite pronoun, or a phrase like "the man," accompanied by 
a gesture indicating himself, instead of the simple first per- 
sonal pronoun, was too artificial to command respect. The 
philological explanation was an apparent failure, and in the 
general reaction against rationalismus vulgaris the ach 
ments of these earlier scholars were completely forpotten. 
Much work had to be done in literary and historical criti- 
cism before the argument from philology could again be 
profitably presented. 

It was only a more modern form that Herder 
the old idea, that the term was intended to teach the human 
nature of Christ as distinct from his divine nature, b;. 
plaining it as a designation of the ideal humanity of Jems. 
Through Schleiermacher 6 and Neander 7 t! sained a 

wide recognition. It was defend II. Weisse, 8 H. 

1 Theologisch-lritischer Commentar uber das Neue Testament, 1800, 
1812. 

2 Quoted by Holtzmann in Zeitschrift fur Wisscnschaft\\t)u Theo- 

logie, 1865, p. 217. 

8 Commentatio in Evangelium Matthaci, p. 320. 

* Commentarius in libros Novi Testamentx, 18SS, I. 320. 

6 Christliche Schriften, II, 1796, v, 4. 
*Einleitung in's Xeue Testament, p. 479 f. 

7 Das Leben Jesu, 1S37, p. 129 ff. 

8 Die Evangelische Gesehichte, 1838, I, p. 325. 



THE SON OF MAN 97 



Iloltzmann 1 and W. Beyschlag 1 from different standpoints. 

M thought that J< d it to intimate that his was a 

higher type of humanity, hence it was to his hearers a riddle. 
Iloltzmann held ti IS did not find the phrase as a afes- 

sianic title but formed it as an esoteric designation for him- 
self from Dan. \ ii, L3, to indicate that he was the bearer of 
all human dignity and human right*. Beyschlag found al- 
ready in the passage in Daniel the ideal man, the pre- 

'it. archetypal, heavenly and in Jesus at once 

the Messiah and this ideal man ap] on earth. 

the term as claiming an em- 
phatically high posit mn, i 'erdinand Baur* 

trically di;' Baring shown that the 

passages where tie- term oeenn in the Fourth < tospel cannot 

throw any light on iis original meaning, lined the 

Synoptics with the result that he OOnld neither find anything 
to SOggesI 1 >an. vii as the probable Origin, nor discover in the 

eontcxt anywhere a hint of ideal manhood. 

aemed probable that Jesus invented this - 

nation in order at the same tii!!-- to claim for himself a \i. - 

siah^hip without which he could not attain to a more univer- 
sal recognition and a genuine national work, and U) 
aloof from the vulgar afesi I with the title 

"Son of God." In distinction from a 

d glory, he woidd he a man deeming nothing 

m to him that beloi :' a human being', 

identifying himself with all human conditio! |g and 

interests in genuine human sympathy, and accepting all 
feringl and saeri d with his work in Ufa Co- 

lani 4 maintained that the expression was unknown before 

1 rbcr drj\ X.Tlirhrn Jusdrur); " Mcnschensohn" in Ztitschrift 
fur l _' ff. 

'Die Christologie des Ncuen Testaments, 1866, p. 9 ff. 

•Zeitschrift fur Wis*. Theologie, 1860, p. 274 ff. In Ncutestament- 
. 1864, p. 82, he assumes a later Danielle significance 
for the eschatological discourses differing from the earlier and origi- 
nal. 

'Jesus Christ et les Croyances messianiques de son temps, 1864, p. 
74 f ., 81 f. 
7 



98 THE PKOPHET OF XAZAEETH 

Jesus, because it was he who created it ; that by it he desig- 
nated himself as a poor child of Adam, and also as the object 
of a particular divine love ; that no one saluted him as "son 
of man," because this would have been almost an insult, 
and that it soon disappeared, because in the faith of the 
church the divinity had become more important than the 
humanity of Jesus. Like Baur, Hilirenfeld 1 1 the 

expression as indicating lowly external c s and a 

humble disposition as ass vith th" Mfilimi office, 

while he considered Dan. vii to be its source and mainta 
its Messianic significance in all places. 

Already W. Scholten- and more clearly D. F. Strauss' had 
looked upon "the son of man" as simply a title of the Mes- 
siah drawn from Dan. vii without any intention of describ- 
ing by it the character of the Messiah. Bernhard Weiai 4 
most consistently carried out this idea. Rejecting both the 
"emphatically high' 1 and the **m ncep- 

tion supposed to be implied in I refraining from 

all analysis of the phra •vinp 

that it was every win- !■■ aneqnh Messiah. 

Among those who believe that Jeaw aetually used the 
phrase, this "synthetic" view has been adopted by Bal 
sperger. 6 

The majority of scholars continued to look * reek 

phrase itself for the solution i Hut while in 

earlier days one fundamental meaning was assu ~ious 

1 Die Evangelxen und die geseh. Gestult Jesu in Zeitschr. f. WisM. 
Th., 1863, p. 327 ff. Substantially tfcfl MM wow has also been ex- 
pressed by Wendt, Die Lehr, :. 1888, p. 23 f., and in the 
thoughtful article of Holsten, Zeitschr. f. Hiss. Th., I ff. 

2 Specimen henneneutieo-theologicum de appellation* qua Jesus se 
Messiam professus est, 1809. 

*Leben Jesu, 1835, p. 463. Later Strauss changed his view under 
the influence of Baur. 

*Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des N. T., 1868, p. 59 ff. 

6 Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu,* 1892, p. 169 ff., 181 ff. It is the merit 
of Baldensperger to have seriously attempted to explain how Jesus as 
a child of his o^Yn ag;e and a truediearted man could have regarded 
himself as the Messiah. The house was well built, but its foundations 
were insecure and have given away compK 



THE SOX OF MAN 99 



combinations began to be introduced. This was quite 
natural. If the term was at all created by Jesus, or its con- 
tent modified by him, it must reflect in some way his Mes- 
sianic consciousness. Thus Carl WJttJchen 1 maintained 
that Jesus changed the current Messianic .f the 

title by infusiiiLT into it the idea of a k i 1 1 lt in a purely ethical 

. by translating it from the abstract into the eon 

by uniting with it the notion of a suffer! nt of the 

. and by introducing the thought of 1 gloriooj 

nee on earth of this ideal man. ( 1\ N aw in 

it, not indeed the ankroe and p an, but a combination 

• afessiahship s I i phase 

of existence through which the Messiah had to pass with its 

I humiliation end mfferings Sehi 
maun 1 combined Daniel ie Messiah, K/echielic prophet, 
ideal man and humai i;. ii. Charles 1 held 

that the true interpret would be found "if we 

with the eonceptioi I trace H 

meut and essential transformation in the usage of • 

in this transformation it i led to and t r into 

its apparent antithesis, the conception of th 

of Jehovah, while it )>• I nal rem Dan. 

vii, the ult in r this designation.' 1 

While Colani 1 and Ust ledly mainta 

that Jesni himsclt' was the invent.. r of the term, and 

Strauss, 1 Baosrath/, and w -M of 

aid as the overwhelming majority 

1 /)■■ ' I fl\ 

Jmm Christi, 1891, p. 155 ff. 
9 Jesu Vcrkiindigung und Lehre MM Gottcs, II, 1895, p. 

206 ff. 

4 The Book of Enoch, 1893, p. 312 ff. 
■ I 

• Theologische ZeiUchrift axis d< r r, 1886, p. 1 ff. 
T /. c. 

• Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschxchtc, 1S79, III, p. 980. 

• Histoir, "1, p. 187. 

" This view has recently been carrie.l out most consistently by G. L. 
Cary, The Synoptic Gospels, 1900, p. 360 ff., who rejects the idea that 



100 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

scholars since the time of the Reformation have looked for 
its origin to Dan. vii. The exegesis of this chapter has 
therefore naturally had much influence on the view of the 
New Testament expression. In earlier times the "one like 
a son of man" in Dan. vii, 13 was understood by all to refer 
to the Messiah. Hitzig 1 recognized the impossibility of this 
interpretation. He regarded the man-like being as a sym- 
bol of Israel, and gave rise to the now current view that sees 
in it a suggestion of the humane regime, the ideal kirn: 
of man, that is to be established when I nes into 

power. Where this interpretation prevailed it eoold not 
but affect the view-point from which the whole question was 
examined. If Daniel could body forth in a symbol the 
notion of an ideal society, why should not Jesi 
in it the suggestion of an ideal humanity to i 
the individual? Even more pertinent, h would be 

the question, Why should he nol hi the phrase in the 

same manner to designate the coming kingdom of hea 
S. Hoekstra,- W. Bruckner 3 and J. 1 upenter 4 af- 

firmed that this was the Knee in which Jesus had used the 
term. But the symbolic re] a "humane 

regime," (i cin MniscJih* itsi<!> al" savors more of m< 
sentiments than of the concr- ptions of Semitic an- 

tiquity, and may have been wrongly attrihv 
prophet. It is more likely that in this paaaig 
where else in the book, the author Dg like a 

man appearing in the celestial realms an ancrel. and that the 
particular angel in this instance was none else than 

Jesus used the term as a Messianic title and maintains that "in 
speaking of himself as 'the Boa of Man' he intended to announce 
himself as a prophet sent to warn his people of the danger which 
threatened them if they did not turn from their evil waya." 

1 Das Buch David, 1850. Ibn Ezra had a!- lained the one 

like a son of man as Israel. Before Hitzig, Hofmann had also made 
this suggestion, Weissagung und ErfuUung. I. p. 209 f. 

*De bejiaming "de Zoon des Menschc 

'Jesus "des Meuschen Sohn" in Jahrbucher fur prot. Tktologie, 
1886, p. 254 ff . 

4 The First Three Gospels, 1S90, p. 383 ff. 



THE SOX OF MAN 101 



the representative on high of the Jewish nation. 1 At the 
end of the first century of our era apocalyptic writers clearly 
show that they understand the man on the clouds in Daniels 
vision as an individual, though there is room for difference 
as to whether be is the Met 16 such t: 1 hero 

ioch. 3 That Jesus said "the man (of Daniel's famous 
vision) will come on the clouds," when he meant "the 
kingdom of hea\vn will 001116," is al*ter all quite im- 
probabl 

Another way out of the difficulty was indicated by the 
general course of literary criticism. Through th- 

ter and Hain- 
an insight had lined into the el. ' rarth 

1 that not only forbade its use as a historic sour* 
also reveal. (1 a \th of "son of man" passages. 

■ the priority of Mark had been mainta <.. 0« 

Storr, C. <J. Wilk.- 7 and ( '. 11. \Vriss<\ s the ohs-rvat ion was 

mad.- by EL 1 [oltzmann 1 that in 1 1 

claim for himself the Messiahship before his visit to 

Caesarea Philippi. This tended to put into a 

"Son of Man" in the Book of Daniel in J< 
of Bib. Lit., 1000, II, p. II il". Nihil sub sole novum. 'I 

ed., 1893) a passage I had never seen, in whifh iish savant 

expresses his view that tbi u om like a son of man'' tal and 

Messiah in one person n< * .rated. This is not my riew, as I 

do not belie%'e the Messiah is in any way ntond to in this passage. 
But suum cvi'iuc. Was L i.e first to think of " in this 

connection? 

:, 4; xlviii, 2; lxii, 7, 9, 14; lxiii, 11; lxix, I 
lxi, 1; IV Iff*, xiii, 3ff. 
•i., lxxi. 

•The view, expressed by the present writer in Journal of Bib. Lit., 
1896, p. 51, that on one occasion Jesus used it in this sense can no 
longer be maintained. 

■ Probnbilia &$ cvangclii et epistolarum Joannis Apostoli indole et 
origine, 1820. 

• Von dem Zueck dcr t vangelischen Gcschichtt, 1786. 

T V' gelist, 1838. 

'Die evangelische Geschichte, 1838. 

'Die Synoptischcn Evangclicn, 18C3, p. 431 ff. 



102 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

gory those passages in Mark that contained the term, and 
yet occurred in this Gospel before the episode at Caesarea 
Philippi. If they could not be removed from their place, 1 
they would have to be explained. But for this ne< 
is scarcely conceivable that the theory should have become bo 
popular that has been maintained by ltzmann* 

and a great number of scholars, according to which Jesus 
used the term to half con his identity, 

hiding it, as it were, from the mighty and wise who looked 
for a son of David, while i ng it to the babes whose 

faith was nourished I dyptk visions. The obvious 

improbability of this conjecture was calculated to raise a 
question concerning the reliability of the synoptic represen- 
tation. The discovery of John's untnM worthiness had led 
scholars to lean all the more heavily on Mark, Matthew and 
Luke. It is Largely the merit of Bruno Baut-r and Volkmar 
to have applied the sai ijospels, explain- 

ing each as a didactic work written for a definite purpose, 
and naturally reflect i: liirious thought of the author 

and the circle of Christiana whan he moved. From this 
point of view it readily oeenx Bauer 4 and then 

independently to Volkmar 5 that the title may have been a 
creation of Mark and that .uently Jesus may never 

have osed it as a self-designation. Th the title* 

in the Pauline literature and the ' ;>se of John gave 

added strength to this impression. But was really Mark the 
originator of this expression ? Oolani 1 had recoimized that 
Mark xiii, 5-32 (Matth. xxiv. 4-36, Luke I was "a 

veritable apocalypse lacking nothing essential to this species 

^his was done by Aflgost Jacobsen, Untersuehungen uber die 
Synoptischen Evanadicn, 18SS, p. 57 ff. 

2 Theologische Jahrbilchcr, 1861, p. 514. 

'Zeitschrift fur Wiss. Th.. 1866, p. U 

'Kritik der EvangeUschen Geschichtc, III, 1S42. p. 1 ff. 

6 Die EvangeJien oder Marcus und die Synopsis, 1870, p. 197 ff. 

9 Distinguished as such by the definite article. 

T Jesus Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps, 1864, p. 
140. 



THE SON OF MAN 103 



of composition." August Jacobsen 1 affirmed that this was 
the door through which the expression entered into the Gos- 
pels, and that it I in the original form of 
Mark. It is in this direction also that Orello Cone- looked 
for the source of "son of man I ■dank title, though 

il thought of ■■ having net te that he 

rded himself as "the man by preeminence.' 1 Brandt's 1 

on was fundamentally the same as Volkmar's. But he 
added the importanl tion that a recent origin and 

nee of this apocalyptic figure would 
naturally explain why an I t should hi 

prompted hat the man coming mi the eload wai 

none else thai in 1 1. L I rtation <>n the 

subject, the IfessJ ance of the term was rtrmigij 

maintain. -d, and :i was SOUght in Dani.-I and the 

apocalypses whence it was taken by t!. lesig- 

the Christian Mrssiah. :t was | 

any of the sayings contai: 

and the attempt I hind the written reeorde was dis- 

eoontenaneed in principle. The warning 

ted by Van afanen. 1 Thus a 

chasm was found bet? 

which no man could pass with any d.-jree of 

Theexelui 
to crowd the whole question into the bt md, as may l..* 

Importanl work'' 1 which set Uudec 

to it 

At this juncture phOol in to throw a 

1 Protestant ische Kirchtnzcitumj, 1886, p. 563 ff. 
'Jesus' St If Disinflation in thr Synoptics in the New World, 1893, 
It ff. 

igtlische Geschichte, IS IT. It was probably the 

Messianic interpretation rather than Dan., vii, itself that was of 
recent OfigiB, as Brandt, following I.:i_':;r-!t*, is inclined to think. 

uitdrullingovto^ rov fatipunrov in hit Xicvwe Testament, 1893. 
■ Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1894, p. 177 ff. On the other hand, J. A. 
Bruins, ibid. 646 ff., in a review of Oort's book saw a defect in this 
failure to look for an Aramaic origin in some instances. 
•Das Messiasgeheimnis, 1901. 



104 THE PROPHET OF XA2ARETH 

bridge across the gulf. Already in 18G2 C. B. B. Uloth 1 
had renewed the old question as to what word Jesus himself 
is likely to have used. His answer was that it must have 
been the Aramaic bar jiasha. But this could have no n 
ing other than "man," "the man." J< ntly 

called himself "the man," the frail mortal. But even as 
such he had a right to assure his fellow men of the pardon 
of their sins (Matth. ix, 6). Paul de i 
served that bar nasha could only mean "man," and inter- 
preted it in that sense in Matth. viii, 19 nnes 
Weiss 3 had returned t<> the exegtt 
in the case of Mark ii, in and ii. 28. .' 
declared that the phra ;iean "man" 
and consequently imply no claim t<> (he Mflil What 
was new in the contribution of B. I). 1 

bination of Oort's general pot n the m- f the 

Greek term with the assertion that in aces, (M 

xii, 8, xii, 32, xvi, 13) a Itaoanifl rigniffeft] 
while in two of these, (Matth. xii, 8, 32) a r« 
Aramaic bar nasha clearly in-: : man 

in a generic sense, Berdmani h those v 

not find in bar nasha a Messianic titl 
possible that on some occasions Je- 

him something more than a man with D that he 

was a man as well as they. The writer" called at- 

tention to the fact that I careful crit ysis con' 

independent grounds admit only four genuine sayings of 

1 De bctcclrnis MM CM uitdrukling "Zoo* d<s Mcngchen," Q od§0 

Iccrdc Bijdragcn, 1862, p, -U'>7 ff. 

8 Gesammcltc Abhandhingt ;:. 
p. 226 f., in Gesammtausgabc Lctztcr Hand. 

'Die Predigt Jcsu vom Eciche QaUm, Wichfolg* 

Christi, 1895, p. 33 ff. 

4 Israclitische und jiidische (/ 

6 De oorsprong MR dc uitdrukling "Z-x.-i </<.< \[< nschm*' ali evam- 
gelische Mcssiastitel, Th. Tijdschrift, 1- bid., 1895, 

p. 49 ff . 

6 Was bar nasha a Messianic Title/ in Journal of Biblical Litera- 
ture, 1896, p. 36 ff. 



THE SON OF MAN 105 



I containing this term before th. 
Philippi, and that in each of these the generic sense of 
"man" v.. suitable j that an utterance such as "man 

must pass away'' may haw given rise to the peculiar 
of the prediction of his death; that bar nOika cannot have 
been d Messianic title either in Daniel, Enoch, 

Ezra, or the Aral srhile through the 

translation of th-- have 

found its way as a Id 

In a dke - ie of J< i is, Arnold 

indicated fa that in Mark ii. 28, ii. 1*' 

and Matth. i i original moaning "man" 

that in Mattli. viii. i that 

in Matth. xi, old he I The 

the ead tal passages ; 

•k, whir' | y.-t ipj The 

ratae of L ireful 

stii(l\ iture which led him t 

that tic- < freek title may haw ori 

i'aul ami t! •" A. I)., as ac- 

oe with it a; T iinr in Ma- 

in regard to o of bar by Jen mann 

• (1 substantially the same conclusion as Iv-nlman 

l Jcsu Slutttrsprachf , 1806, pp. 91 ff., 140 ff. 

in Die Modernc Fortch Gcschichtc des Christen- 

turns, 1898, p. 75, and Th. /.if. Ztxtumj, 1898, eol 
f erred that Meyer deems it possible that in some eachatologica 
sages the phras. sod by 

" Der Mentchcnsohn, 1896. Lietxmann's lexical c«»l 
good service. Some of the forms were 

Wellhausen. Why 90 A. D.f Even if Harnack (Chro- 

nologic Altchr. L\t., 1897, j>. 298 flf.), based on an obscure and mani- 
festly corrupt passage in Clement of Alexandria, were more trust- 
worthy than t! birth a f 

■ years la: ertulliai: 's statement that he was a bishop 'j 

son more reliable than M was himself a bishop (c-f. 

18S8, p. 34 ff.), is 
there a shr. that Marcion as a child was familiar with 

the gospel he quoted in Borne after 140 A. D.f 



106 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

present writer, and Meyer. WeUhansen 1 indicated his ac- 
ceptance of the new view, and subsequently pave a more 
extended statement of hi- L Pfleid ecog- 

nized the correctness of this position; Marti 3 adopted it. 
with the suggestion that Mark xiii, 26* may have piven oc- 
casion for putting the expression as a Messianic title on the 
lips of Jesus. Bevan 4 aMy defended il Ice - indi- 

cated his approval, and Staerk 4 combined it with \Y rede's 
position. 

This view has naturally met with eonsidorab! tion. 

Van Manen, Hilgenfeld, Gnni man, 

Baldensperger, EQdp] irks, Shoes, Drum- 

mond, Stevens, Fiebig and Driver fa 

and indicated difficulties. Against the tan bo assume 

a genuine utterance of J« D the 

Synoptic Gospels attributed to him, and I I the pe- 

culiar character and manifestly Lai of these wri* 

Van Manen V pr< 

within the Synopl ften possible to trace a gr 

from a simpler form to one unquestionably later 

thought, the investigator certainty has ht to assume 

that this development did not begin in our present Gospels. 
By testing a certain word in an approzhn the 

Aramaic form it must have had if uf Jesus an en- 

tirely different sense fa do4 SfildOBl suggested, that may 
readily have been obscured by a natural mi 
tion or an equally natural doctrinal bits). The more foreign 
to the thought of the evangelists the sentiment I aled 

proves to be, the more importance must evidently be atts 
to it. Schmieden is unquestionably right in 

1 Israelitische und jiidischc Gcschichtt', 1897, p. 381; 
Vorarbeiten, VI, 1890, p. 187 ff. 
*New World, 1S99, p. 444 ff. 
'Das Buck Daniel, 1901, p. 53. 
4 Critical Kcuicw, 1S99, p. 14S ff. 

6 Quoted by Drammond in Journal of Thcol. Studies, 1901. 
'Prot. Monatsheftc, 1902. p. 297 ff. 
9 1 c. 
* Protestantische Monatshefte, 1S98, p. 307. 



THE SON OF MAX 107 



the principle that "absoli. 1 be accorded 

to that which cannot have been invented by I tradition re- 
plete with veneration for Jesus b< .tradictini: it, and 
clearly in instances where anions tic frmngnliltfl tliem- 
selves one or another has actually -at ion 

out of n for •!■ warn. " Thii prii Beetty 

sound, as every historian knows. It h by the 

:it writ.-r in his study ol the life of J< -reiniah, 1 and will 

find the fullest recognition in hk of the life of 

But why this should haw led I /ainst the 

feO the vernaeular iifiicult to understand. 

This | inevly enough, : 

titled, 

the passages in question furnish I valuable 

illust ol his principle. 

If we turn to the four passage report savin 

Jesus | 
his a* . has a righfl t<> pardon 

k ii, 1«> ) . The question in dfl I man 

ian that his sins are pardon. -d. 
has said, "Child, thy re forgiven!" The Ph.t 

maintain that I lod alone can I Si DO hint 

that they thouirl I 'inns, 

and t! ibsolntely no 

the Messiah t H affirms that man hi 

thought finds expression I 
when Jesos enjoin ithor- 

ity, this bleeeed privilege ol ■enuring their fellow-men of the 

n of th when tl. m sliould j 

them in doing so (Matt)i. xviii, 18). ' iple assurance 

■ness, flowing from a living faitli in a heavenly 

Father's lore, WU I no sacerdotal let Any man had 

a right to do it. This was a thought too bold for the early 

remiah in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. 
"Scholars who quote Bertholdt's Christologia Judacorum, 1811, p. 
165 ff., should read the remarkable paragraph on the bearing of the 
penalties of sins by the Messiah. All I -texts that refer to 

the doctrine at all are taken from the New Testament. 



108 THE PROPHET OF XAZAEETH 

church to grasp. More congenial was the idea that the 
Christ could pardon sins. The church asked, ' ' Who is the 
man that can pardon sins?" and she answered, " Christ." 
It was no doubt because the Greek translator, following the 
custom of the Alexandrian version, rendered the phrase 
literally "the son of man" rather than in good idiomatic 
Greek, "the man," which in English would be simply 
"man," that the Baying was pr< i t all. It is not 

necessary to suppose that this utterance was originally con- 
nected with a case of healing, and therefoi • relevant 
to ask whether Jesus thought that all men could exercise 
healing power, even if it were easier than it is to answer 
such a question. Wellhausen rightly ohemvci that the em- 
phasis is not on man but on may. 1 

Mark ii, 23 ff, pi Eleven el iples 

have been eating corn as they igfa the field, and 

are accused of not keeping the sabbath. Jeans does not seem 
to have eaten: the accusation is against sciples. But 

he defends them by quoting the example < ' David 

ate of the shewbread that, accord • law, he had no 

right to eat, and gave his folio 

point is not that David and "1 may tak« 

erties with God's law which would be wrong for others, but 
clearly that so godly a man as 1 • sus- 

tenance of life was in God the 

maintenance of the temple f .1 be mis- 

interpreted, he adds, accordi] .rgu- 

ment. The law permits the pi w.»rk on the sabbath, 

thus regarding the commanded eessation of labor as leas 
important than the maintenance of divine worship. The 
thought is not that he and his had pri 

had none, and Jesus had no interest in the sacrificial cult, 
as the next statement shows. But even from the standpoint 
of the law there were things more important than th 
joined cessation of work. The wh 1 system was, 

in his judgment, of less significance than the principle of 
love violated in this charge prefer] the innocent 

1 1 c, p. 203. 



THE SON OF MAN 109 



Institutions have their value only as t! e man's good. 

Man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man ; 
therefore man is also lurd of the sabbath. The Aramaic 
words cannot have conveyed any other sense than this, and 
this alone is relevant to the a 
There is no < in the argon not made 

for the sake of the sabbath, but the sabbath for t! 

man, | B the Ifeaaiah has authority nwr the sabbath.'' 

■aamnnlHm thai by tl: 

man" JcfOI had i . claimed 

the afeaeiah. and had been m 

do so, an assumption that Sehmiedel doee n<a ■hare, 1 there 
would be no force in this reasonin - eeaeary to 

thai the Hernia] k the law or anthori 

pies to do so, how eoold so startling i j 

d by the p leration that 'bath 

was I- sake? 

that the .' Messiah to violate or abrogate 

the divinely lhv.-h law. Tin- i '-TLrestkm would prob- 

ably 1 !y deaired t 

rati that th h had I I dispense 

the WW, and that \. • Messiah, he 

have understood thai what was needed for thai pro 
was a » a recognised afeaaianie passage ascribing 

such : • i the IKIeaaiah, or a firmly rooted tradition to 

Sect, and i straight forward • 
tion of his claims, all the more mdiapenaable if he did not 

Wiafa his Mes.siahship to be taken i | sense. 

it possible that the Aram;: lie used for "si>n of man " 

eoold have been interpreted as a afeaaianie title, the impres- 
sion left on the Pharisees would, after all, be that he had de- 

■ 1 law-break md that regard for the 

bath, must yield to regard far th man, 

and had made roan a iweeping application of a prin- 

ciple, true enough in certain circumstanees, to himself and 
followers as would allow any man to set aside any ordinance 
of God. 

M. e.,p. 296. 



110 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

But Schmiedel thinks that Jesus may have been led to 
regard himself as the Messiah by the practical question that 
he, as a reformer, was forced to meet, whether the validity 
of the law might be set aside. ' ' The law was intended to re- 
main forever. If it must be changed, an explicit authoriza- 
tion by God was of course necessary. ;het had pos- 
sessed this. It was on the whole conceivable only in 
connection with the new order of the world, the coming of 
the Messianic age. Consequently only one could be the 
divine messenger who would dare to announce it, the Mes- 
siah. ,n This ingenious line of reason in,' rati on presup- 
positions that are untenable. I that 
Moses was the author of the I' I he found in 
the prophetic rolls the most panted criticism of the cult. 
Prophets had in the name of God spol 1st sacrifices, 
temples, sabbaths and other ordinances of the law. The 
entire evangelic tradition shows that Jesus was deeply U 
enced by the prophets, but can bad any great 
interest in the law. To a lawyer of 0m PI ■ the 
question of the validity of th right seem one of life 
and death; the carpenter of Nazareth lived in another l 
of thought. To draw a pictu- >h s.^i.-ty in ^neral 
at the beginning of our era from the n of lawyers 
in the Talmuds is not only to read back later ideas and con- 
ditions into an earlier age, hut to do injustice by a false 
generalization to a national life that toped in 
many directions. 2 AVhether there was any re! ween 
the Essenes and Jesus or not, the fact is significant that 
these most pious members of the nation did not regard it 
necessary to wait for a Messiah to authorize a remarkably 
free attitude toward the law and the tern; fee, It is 
doubtful whether the process had more than begun in the 

1 I. c, p. 301. 

2 In addition to this false generalization, there often appears a 
shockingly one-sided and unjust estimate of the type of religious life 
revealed by Eabbinic literature. This sectarianism, which can only be 
overcome by a sounder historic method and a long training in ob- 
jective yet sympathetic treatment of different religious phenomena, 
still disfigures many a work of great erudition and liberal t rti Imnisi 



THE SON OF MAX 111 



days of Jesus, by which the religious looks read in the 
synagogue were reduced into a canon through the exclusion 
of the rolls that a majority of scholars did not consider as 
rendering the hands "unclean." 1 Qali i notorious for 

what irded in Jerusalem as lazer conceptions. The 

man of Nazareth who \ rth from r\s bench, 

Of old from liis sycaiiK'? unto 

is not likely to haw scrupled to follow (he exam]' 
the propheti that him until he could penoade 

if thai he was, ox me in the future, 

Messiah ■ trymen looked for. Hut this 

view of the sabbath that put it wholly into the hands of 
was too radical forth te, though 

probably unintentional, mist- 

rtmg thought that the Christ was lord of 

the sabbath, and would no doubt lend hii authority to any 

change mad.- in h : The more natural this thought 

is, th- 'id so 

markedly different form : by th" translation back 

into the original Ait 

Matth. viii. lesus and 

. I will follow thee vrblt I 
• ; • 1 : "The foxes have fa I the bin 

the li nea ta, but 

lay h: life is full of danger and uncertainty. 

Where will he reside I not deprived 

of home and hearth by his convictions. 1 og may be 

I proverb quoted by J< an epigram i 

No doubt the scribe saw quickly the hint, without the 
-lit ever Crossing his mind that the < falilean teacher had 

in the same breath an If as the Etoasinh, and 

had oomplained that, thongfa he wat at ■ man, he 

neit h 1 a house nor had a place in which to lodge 

r night 

M'f. Srhmi.lt, Bible Canon, Critical Vine in the Jewish Encyclo- 

Kf ami Bit i-ydopaedia. 

'This feeling still in some modern apologies for the 

change from the seventh to the first day. 



112 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH 



Of more importance is Matth. xii, 32. The enemies of 
Jesus charged him with performing his cures by the aid of 
Beelzebul. In this he saw a blasphemy, because he felt that 
his success in curing the sick was due to the spirit of God 
that had come upon him ; yet he was careful to distin<: 
between an attack upon a fellow man and a denunciation of 
the spirit that operated in him, Baying: "If any one 
speaks against bar nasha, i. e., man, 1 that may be pardoned 
him, but he that speaks against the holy spirit 
pardon. ' ' No one in the audience could have understood him 
to say: "Yon may blaspheme the Messiah with i- 
but not the Holy Ghost." The distinction is clearly be- 
tween the divine spirit and the human instrumentality. 
The general principle, that under all circumstances a man 
should be willing to forgive what U 
fellow man, put no emphasis upon t ; 
To the church it was quite a different thing to speak against 
an ordinary man from speak The 

spirit that p< tly to himself an ob- 

jective reality. From this divine spirit ished 

himself. For it he cherished the utmost That 

any one should have called this mystc; 
beatifying prophetic spirit Beelsebul filled him with 
ror. How could such a sin be pardoned T The more diffi- 
cult it was for the church tli tweao the 
man Jesus and the divine spirit that, aceordii; 
dwelt in all God's children, the more probable is the earlier 
form that comes to view in the i t SI pos- 
sible that words uttered on two occasions have been put 
together in Matthew's account. 

Matth. xvi, 13 is a connate reading. The Sinaitie Syriac 
has a more original form, "What do men say concerning 
me? that is Who is this son of man?" "This" may be set 
to the account of the Aramaic translator. 1 has 

suggested. "Who is the son of man I hen be a later 

1 On the basis of a reading that Marcion seems to hare had, Well- 
hausen suggests as the original "whatever is said by a man," "all 
that man says," fifeimm und Torarbeiten, VI, p. 204. 



THE SON OF MAN 113 



interpolation in the Greek text. To the mind of the inter- 
polator J2sus had already designated himself as the Messiah 
by the term Sun of Man. But the answer in tl lemed 

to him to give a fuller insight into the nature of the Messiah, 
to him the Son of God in a «. To this 

extent Van Id probably right. 

niarkaM [ling this title in early 

Literature outside of tfa 

neither be affin tried thai it is due to 

ignorance. Bol it ■ difficult I pe the in that 

g in the Johannine apocalypae 1 indieatee that it 
had n ired as i M itle when in the 

itteou Arts \ 11. 56 show i 
amewhat later d riatian writer did Dot hesitate 

to put the title upon the lipe ol th martyr when 

is. 1 
Bilgenfeld 4 has called attention to e translation by 
if a passage in l pew Gospel, where he 

that J "took a bread, Messed, 

it and gave it to James the Just, saying: 'my brother, 
cat thy bre a d beeanse the Mian has risen from those 

that i The question is. what ! 

!•«•<! by fliiui I i, Bilgenfeld thinks it may have 

h dc nasha. Tims the K< i hristiai 

tempi r the Greek title. But this awkwa 

1 In IV .. i, IS, and xiv, 1 ■ 

unents of llr >no\og\e d. Alt. L\t. y 

1897, j>. MS IT. Tliat rarlit-r man-rial \\as us.-d is as evident as that 

ro for a i native pre- 

sentation of t!.- i "8011 of Man" in tho 

versions Such a survey, as complete as 

the absence of a concordance permits, correcting some unfortunate 
errors made by Dri\ nann and others and raising some new 

and interesting s, not, b ing the main ques- 

ti«.n. will be found in my ar ,,f Man, in Vul. IV, of the 

Encyclopedia Bib 

* Berliner philologische Wochenschrift, 1897, p. 1520 ff. 
[4 illust. 
8 



114 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

not ungrammatical 1 form was only created by the dire neces- 
sity of translating a Greek expression for which there was 
no idiomatic Aramaic equivalent, because it was itself a 
slavishly literal rendering of an Aramaic phrase that meant 
simply "man," and under no circumstances could be a title. 
The saying is not genuine and throws no lijrht on the subject, 
except that it would show how little Christian writers 
among the Ebionites hesitated to put the phrase into the 
mouth of Jesus, as Lietzmann has well pointed out,- if we 
could be sure that the original reading of the Hebrew Gospel 
has been preserved. But this is far fr< in, as another 

variant exists. 3 

Against the fundamental assumption of all Semitic 
scholars who had dealt with the subject, that at the time of 
Jesus bar nasha was the designation of "man" in Galilean 
Aramaic, a protest was entered I if Dalman* He 

pointed out that this phrase da Mical 

Aramaic, the Palmyrene and Xal>ata.-an in s cripti ons, Tar- 
gum Onkelos, and the Samaritan Tannim t 
and maintained that bar nasha was an innovation in the 
later Galilean and Christian Palestinian literature bra 
in from Edessa. Bevan 5 replied, thai in : 
translators simply showed their usual I d the 

Hebrew idiom ; that the occ \t using the phrase in the 

inscriptions were naturally few; that i uses of 

enash and bar enash which appear concurrently in Syriac 
are all found in one or another of the Palestinian 
and that no Palestinian dialect employs any of these forms 
in a sense unknown in Syriac. Wellhausen 4 found h not in- 
credible that the distinctive term for "man," ' man 
being," should have been lacking here and tl 

l Cf. Wellhausen, T>cr Surischc Evanaclicnpalimpsest vorn Sinai, 
1895, p. 12, but also Schmidt in Journal of Bib. Lit., 1896, r 
a I c, p. 10. 

3 See Schmidt, "Son of Man" in Encyclopaedia Bibliea, 
* Die Worte Jesu, 1S98, p. 191 ff. 
B Critical Ecvietc, 1S99, p. 148 ff. 
a Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, p. v ff. 






THE SON OF MAN 115 



pointed to Dan. vii, 13, the Evansreliarium, and the Targiim 
and Talmud edited in Galilee as evidence of its existence in 
Palestine, and considered as arbitrary the conjecture that 
it was due to Kdessene influence. Dalman no doubt has 
indicated a real to of Aramaic speech in thifl 

but the older Palestinian literati; lit to show at 

what time the definite appellative came into i mmon 

use, and then imption in favor of its earlier 

lilee. [1 int that Dahnan him- 

self can find no other phrase than ba\ ikely to have 

been used by J The idea that he employed this mpr os- 

not in the on that it has in all Aramaic dia- 

and in all the 1. of the 

Galilean dialect, but as an innovation to designate hi] 
as "the human b iture thai God will make 

lord of the world," I visibility. 

Kven according: to Dalman .!• islui ; 

and he has well shown that : ! to be a 
Messianic title either boo Enoch, IV Ezra, or any other 
source. 

The authority of so accomplished I stud-Tit of Palestinian 

Aramaic as Dalman naturally U 1 scholars unpre- 

pass an independenl judgment Baldenspt 
smature rejoiehi ma] defeat of the 

philologieaJ explanation, and hinted at undue philosophical 

prepossessions. Bush Ethees 1 excused himself from com 
inpr the srguments presented by the pr e s en t writer on the 
ground thai "Schmidt is manifestly hampered by the pre- 
judgment thai • ot have mad.- lor- himself at the 

pernatural C This was not the 

The only prejudgment was that Jesus did not speak Qi 

and thai it was incumbent on the student of tie- I 

!1 available means to find OUt what he actually 

At the outset it seemed altogether likely that the teaching, 
conduct, and tragic fate of Jesus could be best accounted for 
on the assumption that he regarded himself as the Messiah, 

1 Theoloaischc Rundschau, 1900, p. 201 ff. 
• Journal of Bib. Lit., XVII, 96. 



116 THE PEOPHET OF XAZAEETH 

and made for himself such supernatural claims as this posi- 
tion implied. On a priori grounds it is difficult to see why 
it should not have been as possible for Jesus to make such 
claims as for a Simon bar Kozeba. It would have been an 
easier road to travel than the narrow path he trod. That 
he rose above even the desire to become a righteous king, a 
world-conquering Messiah, can be explained only by his 
peculiar moral disposition and his supreme religious genius. 
But this result of a long series of investigations was wholly 
unexpected. 

Charles's translation of the Book of Enoch unintention- 
ally led a number of scholars into confusion. To argue 
from even the best of translations is always a hazardous un- 
dertaking. As much stress was laid on the demonstrative 
pronoun "this" or "that," the present writer called atten- 
tion to the fact that the demonstrative is often used in the 
Ethiopic for the lacking definite article, and that therefore 
"this son of man" may be (he rendering oi a Greek "the 
son of man." 1 Charles 2 has - :it)y shown a number 

of instances in Enoch of this usage, and drawn the con- 
clusion that the Greek text had "'the son of 
man" as a Messianic title. But a more careful discrimina- 
tion may be necessary. It H ly as.su: • the 
book of Enoch was translated from the 
by a Christian. If so, it is iM indi- 
cate the article by a demonstrative when I Nation of 
the New Testament had never done so in the case of "the 
son of man." 3 Not less peculiar would it be that he should 
not have used uniformly the term walda cguala cmahyau 
("son of the offspring of the mother of the livi- 
variably employed in the Gospels, but as often other terms. 
It is not impossible, however, that the book i ated 
by a Jew before Christianity was introduced. T) 

1 Journal of Bib. Lit., 1S96, p. 48. 

2 A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life 1S99. p. 
214 f. 

'Flemming in Lietzmann, Zur Menschtnsohnfrat: p. 5. 

My own collation corroborates that of Flemming on t: 



THE SON OF MAX 117 

account for its place in the Jewish canon as well as in the 
Christian. 1 In that case the same freedom would be natural 
as that obtaining in the Old Testament. All passages con- 
taining the distinctive form of the expression in the 
Ethiopic Gospels may then have been retouched by Christian 
copyists. But did the Greek text read "this son of man" or 
"the son of man"? The latt >ible. But is it prob- 

able? That depends upon what form the transistor into 
Greek found in | inaic original, and what his own 

faith was. If he was i iliar with the Gospels, 

and < i that none SSM than th 

to, he may have written "the son of man,' 1 whether the 
Aramaic had a demonstrative or not. It he WSS I 
whieh is more probable, he would naturally think of Dan- 
iel's "son of man," and : of IV Bars xiii, 12, 
suggests that he may haw read "the son of man," bar 
nasha with a d I difficult to think through 
En. xlvi in t! without mpressed with the 
naturalnr-ss of the " I saw one like B man :" 

"I asked in regard to thai is the 

man who has rig h teo man whom thou has! 

seen will arouse the k . from their thl This 

is evidently m good Older. IT that mar; 

the L rits" xlviii. 2) follows 

naturally. Toward the end of the book it is more difficult 
to determine where tl • found a 

bar nasha in his Aramaic text. That in the original "son 
of man" occurred as ink title, is impossible to af- 

firm, and altogether improbsJ 

The most serious objection is derived from the 

presence of th lietions of Jesus' death and resur- 

ol How was the title broughl from the esehatologica] 

I into so different I setting 1 It may be answered that 

when once utterances concerning the ooming of the son of 

man had been placed on the lips of Jesus, and the expression 

1 Cf. the account of James Bruce in Richard Lawrence's editio 
princeps Libri Enoch prophetae vcrsio Aethiopica, 1838, p. xi. 
■ La pensde de Jisus sur le royaumc de dieu, 1897. 



118 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

consequently understood as a self-designation it may readily 
have been substituted for "I," as the vacillating tradition in 
many places indicates, and adopted in the creation of new 
oracles. It is probable that Jesus actually said, when the 
prophet's death began to appear to him as a possible issue 
of his career: "man must pass away" (Mark xiv, 21) and 
added: "but he will rise again" (Mark ix, 31), as he no 
doubt believed in a resurrection of the dead, though his con- 
ception of it seems to have approached the Essene 
(Mark xii, 26, 27). Translated into Greek, such a sa . 
would almost inevitably have been interpreted as referring 
to Jesus himself exclusively. 

Gunkel's 1 opposition comes from his stn~>ne c 
that "the man" is a mythological figure of Babylonian 
origin. So far as the personal it 

Daniel, Enoch and Ezra r< i no doubt ritrht in assum- 

ing an ultimate Babylonian origin. Thfl oonfiiat between 
Marduk and Tiamat became in Judaism I conflict betw e en 
Yahwe and the great chaoi r. What was first 

ascribed to Yahwe himself was ffobeeq I ssigned to an 

angel. This angel was Michael. Alter t: D of 

the beast this celestial representative of Isra«*l in Dan. vii 
comes with the clouds to rec world-empire. 2 The 

1 Zeitschrift fiir Witt, Thcologic, 1899. p. 581 ff. Das Vieric Buck 
Esra in Kautzsch, PttH dtfig mpktm, 1900, p. 347. Gunkel is quit* 
right in his contention that religious ideas in general, and particu- 
larly eschatological conceptions, occurring only sporadically and by 
way of allusion in extant literature, may have lived quite a flourishing 
life in the thoughts of men and may have had their origin in Oriental 
mythology. But it must not be forgotten that a possibility is by no 
means a necessity, that for certain knowledge we are wholly dependent 
upon the literary remains, that, when these indicate a development of 
thought, a corresponding growth is likely to have taken place in the 
social milieu whence these expressions come, and that it is safer to err 
on the side of a too conservative clinging to the literary documents 
than by giving too free reins to speculations as to what may have 
come down from immemorial times ("uralt") or from f . - 
mythology. 

'Marti, in a friendly note to the author, suggests as a difficulty 
against supposing Michael to be meant that one would expect the 
other nations in that case to be likewise represented by their ""g *^ 



THE SON OF MAN 119 



development of the BfearianM idea led to a transfer of these 
functions to the Messiah. But that the celestial being de- 
scribed, as every other angel, as haying Ok -ance of a 
man, had for his proper name "the human being," lacks all 
probability. Hommel 1 has called attention to the interest- 
ing fact that Adapa, the human counterpart of Manluk, is 
spoken of as zir amiluti ("seed of men"). But how zir 
amiluti can mean "he from whOM Med the whole of man- 
kind is sj. i as difficult to understand a> ipring 
of mankind" eoold poaribfy I -on of 
man." The plain meani: ■ <uml r :iL r of 
human paivnts," and theft il DO intimation that this was a 
title, or that Adapt was the fir 

It is i mp or tan t, hoi in mind 

origin of this figure. Beingi in ; !;tt mow 

about among the alouda or at 1 1 nei of the deep ar 

men but angels. In Dan. viii, 15 the BHgi 1 ■ intro- 

duced as "one baring the app of ■ man:" in \. L6 

he is like "the sons ol in iii. 86 "fottl men" are ro- 

' one of them is like "a son /<m1s ; " in 

ix, 21 the angel ■ I to as "the man 

xii, 6, 7. In Ber. \iv, 14 "like a son of man" 
is manifestly a render I in. vii, l 

nra, i designation of an angel; in 

Kn. lxxxvii, '1 the four archangels are all "like white men." 
The impression left upon an ancient reader of Dan. vi 
xlvi, IV Ezra xni. Rev, loptM a] 

but dooms it nocessary to put more emphasis than has been done on 
the "celestial, angelic character of Israel." However, if th<- myth- 
ical origin is admitted, th:it would explain the form. The violation 
of the chaos-monster by Yahwe (or his representative) was a familiar 
thought; so also the identification of the chaos-monster with a 
heathen world-power. The slaying of an angel would be quite a 
different thing. Daniel speaks with evident shyness about the great 
angels of Persia and of Greece. The more earnestly it is attempted 
to make an angel out oi "he more difficult it will become to 

BfQid the conclusion that Israel's angel is n 

1 The Expository Times, May, 1900, p. 341 ff. A. Jeremias had 
already briefly suggested the comparison in Eoscher's Lexicon d. 
yritch. und ruin. Mytholo<j\t, 111, 



120 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

that of an occupant of the celestial world, not of a frail mor- 
tal. This meets the weightiest objection of Drummond, 1 that 
the church would have preferred to invent some higher title. 
If Jesus used the term bar nasha, as no Semitic scholar 
doubts, he can have been understood to mean by it only 
"man" in general. In the passages that on indepen 
grounds are most likely to be genuine it can have been in- 
tended to mean nothing else. When the church idem 
him with the Danielic ''son of man,'' it sppl nim a 

high title. Daniel's celestial being was no ordinary man. 

That Jesus chose to call himself "the man" in order to 
show that he was the man of Dani 

"son of David" or Messiah expected by tl e, as 

Kloepper 2 seems to think, is well nigh 03000 
moral qualities does Daniel's "man" possess f What 
ethical content could men have given t<» tl n of 

one whose appearance meant to them the esta at of 

the empire of the Jews that was n< 
Messianic ideal? Clemen 

been a Messianic title at the time of Jesoa as well as I 
The answer is obvious. There ifl not the Blight 
that bar nasha ever was osed is a 1 ifl title. 

reason to believe that on some it in the 

sense it commonly and exclusively hat maic 

literature. In these instants it y trans- 

lated in the Greek gospels by a title apparently not yet 
drawn from the book of Daniel wh ation and Fourth 

Ezra were written in the reign of Domitian. 

But Stevens 4 thinks that "the positive and abundant 
dence of the Gospels to the effect that Jeans used 'the s 
man' (or its equivalent) to designate an official peculiar- 
ity (to claim no more) of his person and work is not to be 
set aside by mere conjectures as to the supposed u^ 
Aramaic words." One who reads without critical oonsi 

1 Journal of Theological Studies. July. I 9 ff. 

'Zeitschrift fiir Wisscnschaftlichc T). ^99, p. 161 ff. 

8 Theologischc Litcratur-Zcitung, 1S99, col. 489. 
* The Teaching of Jems, 1901, p. 91. 



THE SOX OF MAN 121 



ations the four Greek gospels and observes that the term oc- 
curs not less than eighty-one times 1 is naturally impressed 
1 Ab it is of some importance to know which of these occur in three, 
in two, or only in one of the gospels, the following arrangement may 
be made for convenience sake, involving no judgment as to the num- 
ber of times, or separate occasions, wl. tiered 
Jesus as having used the expression. Eight in Slatth., Mart 
Luke: 



1. 


Matth., ix, 6 


Mark, 


Ji 


10 




Luke, 


▼, 


L'l 




i i 


xii, 8 




< < 


ii 


28 




*i 




5 


3. 


1 1 


XVl. 




1 1 


viii, 


38 




i < 


i*, 




4. 


1 1 


xvii. 




n 


ix. 






< < 






5. 


1 < 


xx, 18 




1 1 


X 


,33 




< i 


xviii. 


31 


6. 


1 1 


xxiv, 306 




i « 


xiii, 


26 




* i 


xxi, 




7. 




xx\ 




< i 


xlv, 


L'l 




1 1 


xxii, 


22 


8. 


< < 


xxvi, 64 




i « 


xiv, 


m 




1 1 


xxii, 


08 




1 rk : 


















9. 


Matth., x\ii. 


9 






Marl 


ix. 








10. 


xvii, 


12 










ix. 


1_' 






11. 


XX, 


18 










*. 










" xxvi, 














lib 








XXV.. 


flfl 










xiv. 


n 
























It. 


Matth., \iii. 








Luki 


ix. 


5g 






I.'. 


xi. 


19 








< 




34 






16. 


xii, 










' 


xii, 


10a 






17. 


xii, 


40 








1 1 


xi, 


30 






18. 


xxiv, 












xvii, 








19. 


xxiv, 


37 










xvii. 


26 






20. 


xxiv, 


39 












30 






L'l. 


xxiv, 


44 








1 


xii, 


40 




One in Ma 


rk and Luke: 




















" 


31 








Lul 






Nine 


'h. alone: 






















Matth., x. 






28. 


Matth., 


xix, 


28 








xiii. 












xxiv, 


30a 








xiii, 


41 




30. 






XXV, 










xvi, 


13 




31. 


1 1 




xxvi, 










xvi, 


28 
















Eight 


in Luke alone: 






















Luke, 






36. Luke, xix, 10 






33. 


xii, 8 






37. 


< i 


xxi, 36 






34. 


xvi:. 






38. 


i i 


xxii, 48 






35. 


xviii, 8 






39. 


i < 


xxiv, 7 





In the fourth Gospel it occurs twelve times, viz.: i, 51; iii, 13, 14 
(v. 27), vi, 27, 53, 62; viii, 28; ix, 35; xii, 23, 34 a b; xiii, 31. 



122 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

with "the positive and abundant evidence" of its use. But 
-the moment he begins to compare the different gospels and 
examine their peculiarities the number becomes at once less 
significant. If he understands at all the character of the 
Fourth Gospel, he knows that the twelve instances in which 
the term is used in it only indicate the familiarity of its 
author with the Synoptics, or the occurrence of the title in 
Asia Minor a century after the time of Jesus. It is quite 
impossible to read the sixty-nine passages in t 1 pties 

without seeing that there are numerous parallels. Dr 
removes twenty-nine and looks apoi M representing as 

many distinct utteran< But thi hire, sim- 

ple as it is, implies a criticism that cannot stop there. For 
if the doublets and triplets arc examined it that, 

though there is sufficient a purpose to 

report the same Baying, verbal i 

and a choice must be made on ltouikIs of probability. It is 
also seen that in the c passages found 

in Matthew or in Luke, some are dearlj duplicates of say- 
ings already recorded within these gosp have 
synoptic parallels in which the pi and 
others still are manifestly later glosses. Thus Matthew 
x, 23, which is not found in the parallel pass;; j 
11 f., reflects the missionary ideas and h<>p 
Christian Church. The allegorical interpretation of the 
parable of the tares in Matth. xiii. irfy from the 
hand of the evangelist The account in Matth. xvi. 1 
has evidently suffered from later 

Son of the living God" in vs. 16, the pontifical diploma in 
vss. 17-19, and the second question, "Who is this son of 
man" added to the query, "What do men say concerning 
me?" in our oldest witness to the text, the Sinaiti- 
In Matth. xvi, 2S, the Son of Man coining in his kingdom 
has probably taken the place of "the kingdom of heav- 
as is suggested by Luke ix, '27. where "the kingdom of God" 
occurs, and Mark ix, 1, which reads "the kingdom of God 

1 Article Son of Man in Hastings* Bible Dictionary. 



THE SON OF MAN 123 



already come with power." A comparison of Matth. xix, 
28 f. with Mark x, 29 and Luke xviii, 29 shows that each 
evangelist has considerably modified the original utterance, 
which probably had "for the sake of the kingdom of 
heaven." If "the sign of the son of man" in Matth. xxiv, 
30a had formed a part of the original apocalypse, it would 
no doubt have been preserved by Mark and Luke. Matth. 
xxv, 31 is plainly nt ' Vl ' rv bta origin, as is the parable itself, 
reflecting the existence of the Church among the heathen 
nations, and proclaiming the doctrine that the pagan 
to be judged according to their ti <t the Christians. 

In Matth. xxvi, 2 the statement of a fact Mark xiv, 1 f., 
Luke xxii, 1 f.) has been changed into I prophecy. In Luke 
vi, 29 the phrase "for my sa id it ion in 

Matth. v, 11, has been 1 into " I ikfl of the son 

of man." Similarly "I" in Matth. x. 82, itself secondary, 
has been trar son of man" in Luke | 

Lake srii ii not in hannooj with what follows and 

:it ol tin- ( hnn-h is clearly indicated in vs. 

Luke xviii, 8b expresses the same disappointment as 
regards the second coming, I 1 out. 

Luke xix, 10 is a homeless fragment, Enterpolat as in 

Matth. xviii, 11, but contains a beautiful tribute 
WYrnlr- rightly regardi Lake as an exhortation 

by the en The same judgment is, with good 

reason, passed upon Lu Hottsnann.' In 

Matth. xxvi, 60 the text is scarcely sound. Luke xxii, 48 
may L r <> hack to an Aramaic question, " Is it with a kiss that 
thou betrayest a man (b<i f " Hut the tradition is 

larallel passage thowa In Luke 
xxvii, 7 two men in dazzling raiment, evidently angels, re- 
mind the women that Jeans had predicted I h and 
resurrection. Sp- [aided by 
historians as belonging to their proper field. But it is in- 

fcing to observe thai the quotation made by the angel 



1 Glcichnisreden Jesv, 1899, II, p. 288. 

Synoptis< > 17. 

• Hand Commentar, 2nd ed., 1901, p. 414. 



124 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

does not quite correspond to any prediction recorded in the 
gospel. So little did Luke care about accuracy. It is im- 
possible to study even these passages occurring only in one 
gospel without being impressed with the freedom with 
which sayings of Jesus were modified as they passed from 
lip to lip and new ones were created. 

Among the eight passages found only in Matth. and Luke, 
Matth. viii, 20 (Lk ix, 58), xi, 19 (vii, 34), and xii. 
(xii, 10a) probably go back to original sayings of Jesus, as 
we have seen; xii, 40 (xi, 30) is an interpolation, as is gen- 
erally recognized; xxiv, 27, 37 56, 30) b* 
to the Synoptic Apocalypse, and xxix, 44 (xii, 46) is a later 
gloss, as Juelicher 1 has recognized. pas- 
sages found in Matth. and Mark, Matth. xvii, 9 (ix, 8) refers 
to the vision of the shining heavenly body of Je I *ntly 
an anticipation of some vision confirming the Del. 
resurrection. The Elijah question originally MB 
had no connection with the transfiguration. The text in 
Mark ix, 11-13 is late and oonfnttd; that in Matth. xvii, 
10-13 may go back to an Aramaic original, "Thus must a 
man (bar nosh) suffer by them," r • to John the 
Baptist. Matth. xx, 28 (x. 45) is probably a comment by 
the evangelist on the exemplif and death of 
Jesus of the principle laid clown by him.' Luke 1 
contains a curious misunderstand he thought Jesus 
wished to convey. Matth. xxvi, 24b I xiv, 1Mb o.vurs in an 
interpolation that breaks the 003 probably 
without historic foundation. The phrase occurs in Matth. 
xxvi, 45 (xiv, 41), but the connection is far better in Luke 
where it does not appear. In the single passage found only 
in Mark and Luke (viii, 31 and ix, 22) Jesus announc 
death and resurrection on the third day immediately after 
Peter's confession. Of this Matthew k: He 
refers to the sufferings of the son of man for the first time 

1 Gleichnisredcn Jesu, 1899, IT, 142 ff. 

2 The suggestion that this too might go beck to a genuine string 
to the effect that "man (bar tmsha) d M (i nto the * 

to be served, but to serve, ' ' should probably be withdrawn. 



THE SON OF MAN 125 



in xvii, 12 (Mk ix, 12), where the allusion seems to have 
been to John the Bap' stated above. 

Among the eight j found in all the Synoptics 

Matth. ix, 6 (ii, 10, v, 24 and xii, 8 (ii, 28, vi, 5) probably 
go back to original ut Matt! 

i a late addition, still further transformed by the other 
evangelists. As for the p i death and r 

rection in Matth. xvii. 22 I 1 and x\. 18 

xviii, 81), thfl natural situation. 

difficulty of suppressing the political hopei of nil 
ra, and the oppoattioi] ■• in Jeru- 

aalem may in ! i nave filled hii mind with rebodinga. 

But he believed in i those 

id be accounted worthy p. It is 

poaaible thai his diaeiplee and him- 

self with some such i remark as that "man must pass away, 

but he may r a man may he delivered into 

the hands of m.-n and he put to death, y.-t he ma 

D " Matth. ; . | xiii. 2 

Synoptic ApOCalypee <>r The V. od In this work 

r probabk that "a man M was fir 

ntly thi the man" 

in the same mam and Fourth 

I:i Matt h. xxvi, 
wheth it," in I. 

Ye say that I am." The meaning is unmistakably, 
N Y« say that I am the lifffMllh. hut I have mad. | 

rangelial 4 willia upon 

the 1 : niative ans oath. 

Nothing could m w how deeply they were 

under the influence of the theory thai -laintaii 

the end his iii ianie 

Mark xiv. widely from this earlier tradi- 

tion by making Jesus admit his Ifeamiahahip. A critical 
study of the narrath lingly difficult to 

believe in the historical character of t ; >t of the trial 

•iliedrin. Matth. xxvi. 24a (xiv, 21a, xxii, 22) 
belongW to an interpolation already mentioned, 



126 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH 

When these passages are closely examined, some facts be- 
come very apparent. The evidence that Jesus used the 
term, or an equivalent, on this or that occasion is far from 
being positive and abundant. In most instances it is ex- 
ceedingly precarious. When one evangelist affirms that he 
employed it, and the others affirm that he said ''the kingdom 
of God," or "the kingdom of heaven" or "I," all cannot be 
right, and the critic must decide on inner grounds which 
evangelist comes nearest to recording the actual fact, or 
whether any of them can be trusted. When it occurs, as is 
frequently the case, in additions made by a sin. 
to a common report, even scholars who strongly maintain its 
use by Jesus feel little confidence. Even when all the 
Synoptics repeatedly assign to Jesus a statement containing 
it, like the prediction of death and resu l«mce 

can scarcely be regarded as abundant, I ;it the go- 

themselves represent the disciples as abaohttely unpnpared 
for the resurrection, and the risen Jesus as rebuking them, 
not for failing to believe his own prediction, but for not 
understanding the prophecies of the Old Testament. If 
testimonies are to be weighed as well as counted— and in 
matters of such gravity it would be inexcusable not to w 
them,— it must be admitted that the great majority of the 
passages that put the phrase upon the lips of Jesus fall very 
lightly in the scales. Suspicion would attach to them all, 
were it not that sound historical criticism demands, as a 
matter of course, that any saying of Jesus reported in a 
Greek text be translated back into the Aramaic vernacular 
before a final verdict be given. It then hap- ' just the 

passages which critics who never thought of this nee 
independent grounds were most inclined to accept as 
genuine reveal a sense at once so natural and so strik:- 
original as to furnish what, in comparison with the "mere 
conjecture" of all speculations, however necessary, baaed 
only on the uncertain Greek renderings, may justly be re- 
garded as "positive and abundant evidence." It is also of 
interest for the Synoptic problem to observe that among the 
passages occurring in more than one gospel there are some in 



THE SON OF MAN 127 



Matthew and Luke, not found in Mark, that may go back to 
original sayings of Jesus: that the only passage found in 
Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew, cannot be regarded as 
genuine; that there is no authentic saying preserved in 
Luke, that is not also found in Matthew ; that there are pas- 
sages in Mark, as well as in Matthew and Luke, that are 
clearly of very late origin; and that there arc passages in 
Mark, as well as in Matthew and Luke, in which the phrase 
may go back to an original bar nasha oven after the episode 
at Caesarea Philippi 1 

There is a false impression in many circles as to the diffi- 
culty of finding the phrase in the (Jalilean dialed of the 
Aramaic which is likely to have been used by Jesus in those 
genuine utterances where the translation, "the Son 

Of Man," occurs. It is true that the Literary material of 

this dialect apparently does not carry us Farther back than 

to thf second century A. 1). But the translation in this 

case is simplified by the foot that tl uo only be 

the rendering of a form compounded with bat ' and 

by the cii'cumstanee that of terms that may be considered 
bmrek >h-'n<i>!m. Derail d vh de-oor 'nasha 

must 1m- eliminated. All of these an fly ( 'In- 

rendering! of the Greek term Berek d< *naiha has no 

natural meanim_r in Aramaic. An individual of the human 
species is called l>nr '/tasha, literally "son of men," "mem- 
ber of the human race." As the appended article gradually 
tends to lose its force, an anticipatory pronominal suffix is 
attached to the first noun, if the emphasis is to fall. Lightly 
or heavily, on the second Thus hi n h dt -gdbra would mean, 
"son of him, viz., of the man," son of the particular man 
referred to before. B<nli de-'nask* would mean "son of it, 
viz., of the human race'' or "son of the well-known human 
being." As a matter of fact, it never occurs except as a 
rendering of the Greek title, or what is supposed by Chris- 

1 The manifest tendency of these facts is to strengthen the observa- 
tion made long ago by Hilgenfeld that in spite of its numerous and 
extensive later additions the first gospel is likely to be the earliest of 
our Synoptics. See further Ch. ix. 






128 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

tian writers to be its equivalent. It is not a natural product 
of the language, but an artificial creation. It seems to have 
gradually crowded out the earlier berth dr-gabra, found in a 
number of passages in the Sinaitic and Curetonian, 1 and 
won final recognition in the fifth century in the Syriac Vul- 
gate. Its absence in the Evangdiarium Hirrosolymitanum 
probably shows that it never prevailed anions the Christians 
in Palestine. The objection to the earlier translation b 
de-gabra (literally "son of him viz., of the man") was prob- 
ably that "the man," "the masculine human being" seemed 
to point to Joseph. Berek dt -bar f na$ku (literally "the son 
of him, i. e., of the son of man " or " the son 
of the human species ") on : Dt ical 

"man" and "son of man" wen in some connections, and 
how in some sayings gabra was avoided, The only available 
term is bar 'nasha. From the MC :y A. D. on it 

was used more freely in (ialil rkl than in the 

Judaean Targums, though Dan. vii, 18 best shows how 
established its usage n in this dialect That the 

generic use of bar 'nasha was unknown in Galilee only three 
generations before its first ap] in extant 1 

is absolutely contrary to all probability. In transl 
long sentences back into thfl origin*] t ways op- 

erable risk. Where the question is only of a word, and 
there is practically no choice as h« :iargin of error is 

exceedingly small. 

Fiebig 2 has carefully examined both Talmuds, and much 
material besides, with the result that the philolo-j 
elusions on which the theory rests have been thoroug 
roborated. The work is of value, as some scholars had 
imagined that a radically different night be found in 

the parts of the Talmuds not yet examined for this purpose. 
Fiebig 's conclusions will perhaps have all the mor 
with cautious students, as he still clin?s to the idea that 
Jesus used the phrase as a mystifying title, and therefore 

1 Lu1ce vii, 34 (Sin., Cur.); Marl-. \. ft, [Ev.")) ; Lu- 

26 (Cur.) ; Lule, xxii, 4S (Cur.) ; John, xiii, 31 (Si*. [Ev.J). 
2 Der Meiuicheiisohn, Jcsu Selbstbetcichnung, 190L 



THE SON OF MAN 129 



cannot be suspected of an undue bias. He acknowledges 
the essential accuracy of the observations made by the pres- 
ent writer on the question of the meaning of bar naslia, 
though he thinks that the treatment was too ; allow 

a real Insight into the facts. 1 That depends upon tin- 
To persons thoroughly familiar with Aramaic speech it was 
more than enough. Whether otherg will be oonvii 
by Fiebi-j- - of the Talmud, or my own 

tributions to i when 

the consequences are in full view, tin* future will show. 
Piebig himself sc.-ks in vain t 

D that the phrase was Died 1 n an am- 

biguoui mani at the hearers might believe thai he 

ing of man in general or of "the mi . the 

ah as a thirl though in n aking 

of bimeeli ist then d willing to hai 

hearer h hold and original ideas 

at that man for who*, the Babbath was made was also 

)t the sahhath, and that any man. QOt merely a { 

had the right to proclaim the pardon ' it is sup- 

posed that in his heart he cherished the narrower and leu 
•m-. ption that he alone, as the Messiah, was lord of 

ahhath, and had the right to pardon sin. It* h- 

capable of the former, why aaeribe to him the latter 1 

There is more than ambiguity in this; th- 

duplicity of Character. I any g 1 reason why his 

should thus deed for the sake of pn 

ing his claim to Messiahshipl And the slightest 

ground for supposing that "the Man" wsj d even 

i as the Messiah? Designations like "the 
• "the -I " "the Restorer," "the Bride- 

groom," "the Lamb," suggest character or function, and 
are t! intelligible; 4 "the Man on the Clouds" would 

1 I c, p. 

1 In the article Son of Man in Encyclopaedia Biblica. 
•This fact is not fully appreciated by Bousset, Die Religion dea 
'urns, 1903, p. 254. But it is characteristic of the present sit- 
uation that he does not dare to affirm that Jesus used the term Son 
9 



130 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

point to Daniel vii, 13, and names signifying this, like 'anani 
or bar nefele, were formed. But it is not probable that 
either in Babylonian mythology or in Jewish apocalyptic 
speculation an important personage was referred to simply 
as "the man," "the human being." 

Driver 1 suggests as a possibility that Jesus employed the 
term bereh de-'nasha, since bar 'nasha is likely to have been 
commonly used in the sense of man in general. But he 
labors under a wrong impression in regard to the use of this 
title. He thinks that it is alii 1 in the Sinaitic and 

Curetonian Syriac. As a matter of fa pres- 

ent fragmentary condition, both of these texts exhibit the 
rendering bcrch dc-gabra .1 passages. 1 It is also of 

importance that bcrch de-'nasha is i: 1 in the so- 

called Jerusalem Lectionary, which ii the only Aramaic 
sion of the New Testament likely to ha. made in 

Palestine. "What phrase the lost Gospel of the Hebrews 
contained cannot be determined by tin quota- 

tion, the text of which is itself un and the character 

of the book he had before him is very problematic Th- 
tinguished Hebraist finally gives a qualified approval to 
Sanday's theory, that Jesus, who ordinaril j Aramaic, 

may have introduced the mystic title upon some occasions 
when he addressed his Galilean d 

not clear whether Driver would credit Jesus with ha 
originated the remarkable Greek phri new 

facts, or arguments not long ago considered posed of, 

shall be presented, to prove that J< larly or ocea^ 

ally addressed the fishermen of Galilee in Greek, it is to be 
hoped that earnest students will not be diverted tram 
path where duty lies, and great rewards for labor are in 

of Man. He admits freely that "Jesus did not use the title as a con- 
stantly repeated self -designation. ' ' and only cautiously ventures to 
state that "it is not altogether impossible that Jesus may have tome 
time used it. ' ' 

1 Article "Son of Man/' in Hastings' Bible Dictionary. 
1 See p. 12S. 



THE SON OF MAN 131 



sight, by the spell of influential names. 1 Our manifest duty 
is to turn every purported saying of Jesus into Galilean 
Aramaic that we may test in his own vernacular the trans- 
lations we may be fortunate enough to possess. Our 
precious reward <• in coining nearer to the spirit of 

J . and of obtaining more abundant evidence of his 

!<*nt personality. M- 7 ibbi rt Journal, Oct., 

p. 187) i ink claim 

and v. humanitarian doetrin 

ion of oil fellow- 
countrymen, and how H tfafl QOn to I mted 
fort" Unless it can be proved t: Died 

isha as a Menial i himself, th 

no evi at be claimed to be the Messiah. 1 !•■ certainly 

was a teacher of righteousness and lore. He rlnnsod himself 
with the prophet [uently 

scion- ' religion! position. bad lolled 

herproph re hit tin tion to the leading 

parties, his peculiar ethical teaching and his Life explain the 
opposition of his enemies. Elk crucifixion anted far 

by the tal and the political 

inter* late 

The following i ons would then seen justifiable. 

In a number of pregnant ntl tressed his 

1 If new evidence on this point should be furnished by the eminent 

Oxford divim s, it would of course become the duty of scholars seri- 

r it. 1 !' • proofs, or 

hither' show that Jesus now and 

. addressee to his Aramaic q -untrymen, 

rut nt of th< u with the conjecture would 

. furthen ^eoveries, which 

Sandny and I)r - to comm the world, 

should actually prove that the sayings ftboi as genuine 

.v to which 
I iv all facts known to him would 
' y modified. But the manner in which an 
r ^ally discredited theory has been suddenly revived, without the 
slightest suggestion of the new grounds that entitle it to reconsidera- 
tion, justifies the suspicion that nothing has been found that is likely 
to affect in the least the critical study of the gospels. 






132 TEE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

convictions concerning man's rights, privileges, conditions 
and destiny. These were preserved in faithful memory by 
the disciples who had heard them, and hoped that God would 
bring back to them on the clouds of heaven his holy servant, 
their beloved teacher. In course of time they were probably 
also committed to writing in the Aramaic language. The 
destruction of Jerusalem naturally gave a stronp impetus to 
Messianic hopes, both among those who expected the return 
of Jesus as the Messiah, and among those who looked for a 
genuine son of David. Old prophecies were scanned ; new 
prophecies were written. The ptwngn in Daniel where the 
kingdom was promised to the saints also spoke of a celestial 
being who would receive it. Much thought was given to 
this heavenly personality. His identity was not clearly dis- 
closed. He might be Michael, or Enoch; he might also be 
the true descendant of David caught up to heaven to be in 
readiness for the appointed time, or the translated prophet 
of Nazareth. In Fourth wii-lxxi, and the 

original form of the Synoptic Apocalypse, a man is intro- 
duced who is clearly none else than the celestial heir. 
Dan. vii, 13, and is generally ide ntifi ed with the Messiah, 
though sometimes understood to Km Enoek, and probably at 
times Michael. He does not fig in the Book of Reve- 

lation. But disciples of Jesus i ure that he had 

foretold the destruction of state and cult, although not in 
the form familiar to us with its apocalyptic accretions to his 
prophetic warnings. The time came when an apocalyptic 
work, predicting what had come upon Jerusalem for the 
murder of her prophets and righteous men. like Zechariah 
ben Barachiah, during the siege of the city, and foret< 
the coming on the clouds of heaven of the man seen in Dan- 
iel's vision, was ascribed to Jesus himself. It is possible 
that it was translated into Greek under the title, "The \ 
dom of God." The references in this apocalypse to a man 
coming on the clouds would naturally be understood as pre- 
dictions by Jesus himself of his second advent. Meanwhile 
Hellenistic Jews who had been attracted by the gospel were 
influenced in increasing measure by Gnostic speculation. 



THE SON OF MAN 133 



This was itself the result of a fusion of Indian thought and 
Greek philosophy. Amoni: the Indian ideas that seem to 
have entered into this composite faith, there was the concep- 
tion of the Naravana, "the one like a man," "the son of 
man," a term designating the Par smk man. 

A distinction is made in the Rig Veda 1 between the Purusha 
as the absolute being, and Purusha a- the first born. To the 
latter the name "son of man" was given. 1 A on of 

this idea is found in the "man" and the "son of man" in 
D ol the Christian Qg tC 

[renaens, sailed the primeval 1 iLrht . the father of all things, 

prim "tie- Brat man." and the first thought I'liian- 

eting from him a* the ■eeond man." or filius 

hominis, "the son of man bable thai tl 

lation merged with the idea of the u aon of man" in Daniel. 
When at the and of the ■ our first ts 

written in < In-.-k, tl hi: in tin 

The little apocalypse was in< d in part in thu 

gospels, as later in the third, and the signiBeanoe of the 
Greek term need in this doeumenl as a rendering <>f bar 
a ("the man") referring hack to an initial 

("a man"), naturally attached H assages eNf win -re 

contain in<_r the aame term as a translation of the generic bar 

'nasha. Some <.ld saj re thus - 

more i d light It was not man. but the Chriat who 

the lord of the sabbath It w human prh 

but a Messianic prerogative, to pardon siu. It was not 
man's cniiiniMii lot, but his own unnatural humiliation, that 

of man against man 

that Jesus had declared to be pardonable, but he had 
graciously proclaimed forgivenem even for sins against the 

Christ. It was not man's immediate 'ion from the 

dead that he had announced, but exclusively his own t 
red ion that lie had foretold. 

Thus the Aran;. in, by which JesUfl DOt only 

1 X, 90. 

'('f. drill, rntcrxurhunfjen iiber die Entstehung dcs vierten Evan- 
geliums, 1. Ifl ff. 



134 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH 



cannot have conveyed any explicit or implied claims to the 
Messiahship, but actually se^ms to have given utterance to 
far more original and comprehensive views of life, became 
by a natural development a Messianic title. That it may 
have been understood in this latt' by the writers of 

our gospels everywhere, is a correct observation of many 
scholars. Yet there were elements of truth in both the 
"emphatically high' , conception of Herder and the "em- 
phatically low" estimate of Banr. The Synoptists had 
their ideal as well as the Fourth K What the 

Logos was to the latter, ti of man" was to 

the former. 1 On the other hand, an cmdeiiying stratum of 
facts was divined by those who found here and there in the 
phrase an expression of the universal human Bymp 
Jesus. It was also a correct feeling thai 1 affirma- 

tion that to the end Jesus preached the ki: 
and not himself. But for a | life 

of Jesus no line of investigation Ik fruitful than 

that which, based on sound philology, l . that 

Jesus cannot have called himself "the Son of Man." 

1 An examination of the l term "Son of 

Man" by the Fourth Evangelist is nut essential for our present pur- 
pose, as it can throw no light upon its possible use by Jesus (8ee Ch. 
xi). But it may be noticed that 1\ le evangelist, 1898), 

who regards the gospel as originally written by the presbyter John 
and afterwards expanded bj | -inthus, attributes j I 

cally all the "Son of Man" passages to the latter; and that Kreyen- 
biihl {Das Evangchum far U\ihrh,\t, 1900), vfco 0OSJ ander 

of Kapparetaea as its author, looks npofl **Sn oi a the' 

gospel not as an exclusive self -designation of Jesus, but as a term 
applying to "man," "any man, 1 Christcnmensch." The 

Gnostic affinities of the gospel can ned. but Grill 

(I. c.) is right in tracing to Indian sources the conception of an in- 
carnation of a divine being as "the Son of Man," and Jean Reville 
(Le quatricme EvangiJc, 1901) rightly emphasises the paramount in- 
fluence of Philo's thought. 



CHAPTER VI 
THE SUN OF GOD 

To generation after generation of Christian believers 

such exp' as "the Son < "the 8 

when found in the New Testament, naturally conveyed the 
same meaning as they had in the tly rep 

creed- Dating the second 

person in the Boly Trinity, and more particularly hi 

vine nature ai distinguished from his human nature 

I'd in tin- incarnation. They w irded as 

indicative of the fact tl n was not begotten of a 

human lather, but conceived of the Holy Ghost These 
names were freely given to Jesus in epistles eonaid 
to be of apostolic origin. According t<» t 1 pel of 

John, they n [nently aaanmed by him— if, an< 

eording to th they w by him as a aelf- 

Qation OO sonic important OCC than 

once God the Father proclaimed with an audible voice 
from heaven his divii hip. And the demons them- 

selves, when they tremblingly acknowledged his anthor- 
l him as the "Son of God/ 1 The imprei 
, was well-nigh onavoidable that to be the Christ 

the same as to be the Bon of God, and to be the Son 
of God was to be God the Son. Borne men were no doubt 
called in Bcriptore "children of God," or of God." 

Hut such a title, it was felt, must be tai figure of 

h. applicable only in i secondary and derived s< 
Even those who by faith were said to become the 
"adopted children of God," or "partakers of the divine 
nature" could not be thought of as real sons of God. 
While in his case the title implied deity, absolute identity 
of nature with the Father, in theirs it could only suggest a 

135 



136 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

new position as men redeemed from the power and pen- 
alty of sin and brought into living relations with the 
of God, a humanity transformed into moral likenc- 
God. 

This conception of the Son of God could be maintained 
only where the ecumenic creeds v. authori- 

tative or the Bible, from force of habit and lack of pi 
methods of study, was interpreted in the I 
creeds. Wherever reverence for the Script ;cere 

piety, and personal devotion to the I 
pendence of the Church and distrust of hei 
tutions, there was a dccid.. l tendency 

rian views. Whether or Dot a hi >n can be 

traced between such relig i as the Passagii, the 

Paulicians and the Patar 
onites, the Marcionites, the Theodotians, the 
Paulianists and the Sabelliam on the other, t! 
resort to the New Testament with its different types of 
Christology naturally revived many an opin 
demned by the majority in the d ie upbuildi' 

dogma. The distinction made by men like Elipandu 
Toledo, Felix of Urgel, and Claude of Turin the 

eternal Son of God and .1 

tended to place the historic .1 no as 

other men who were also regarded 
God. Among the Begbards, the Brethren < f the f 
Spirit, the Lollards, the Alhigenaet, the Waldensea, 
the Brethren of the United Life th my who 

questioned the view presented by the 

But it was among the Baptists of tl 
that freedom from dogma, a rev. rent and yet eril 
study of the Bible, personal loyalty | 
conception of the worth of human nature, led 
plete rejection of the trinitarian idea of th 

1 There is no good reason for doubting tantial Mem 

the story concerning Gerard of Asti told by Ludolph Senior, Historic 
Mediolani, II, 27, quoted by Cesare Cantu, Cli En 
p. 129. 



THE SON OF GOD 137 



of God." This is the attitude of Hani Denck, Ludwig 
Haetzer, 1 Jakob Kautz, Michael Battler and many of the 
Swiss church' .ell as of Tiziano, Francesco N 

Celio Secundo Curium*, Camillo Benato and the majority 
of the Italian churches in L550. 1 While they maintained 
that Jesus was not God but a man born of Joseph and 
Mary, 3 a son Jy in tl. in which 

this title may be appl thei men, and I saviour in so 

far as men may I)-- morally helped by ftii example and 

spirit, other l< radical party in the Reforma- 

tion era still adhered to the doctrine tl - had no 

human father, vm in his miraealona birth the . 

lieation of the title Son of Qod, hut insist. «1 that this 
natural son of < i'od was I man, though tie ten 

might also be applied to him. if taken in 

In this manner I o was explained by Martin 

lariiiK,* Mieha'l S.-rwtus, Rudolph Martini, (laud.- of 

Bavoy, and apparently alio by Leli 
deiia Begga, Qiolio Qherlandi, Paolo Al/iati, Antonio Etis- 
indrata, Ifatteo Qribaldo and Valentino 

1 It waa only after hia contact with Denck in Straaburg (summer 

d«-ny tin- <l«-ity of Jesus, a.s Keim has 
, Jahrbucht r fur 1> 

k and H:i<t/<r had n<-t | h<r in 

NBrnberg I I than tbera, Tkeel 

Studitn Mad p. 871. This ia of aome baportaMtj aa 

>ws the source of I m, which, ho* 

1 the roots of thought laid bar. rating intcd- 

balance of judgment tl par. 

■8ee Archivo di Stato, Sant' Uffizio, busta 9, found by Benrath 
<n und Kritiken, 1885, p. 20), published by Comba, J: 
Christiana, lhSo, describ :aba, / nostri lUlflfMil, l s '.»7, II, 

488 flf. 

"According to Manelfi's account, of which a eopj b prOMfrad m 
the State Archive at Venice (see the preceding note), Tiziano main- 
1 that Matth., i and ii, ■ interpolations. 

* The conception of Elohim (God) aa a generic name and that of 
Jesua aa a "natural son," afterward- c of Servetus's 
theology, wire already expressed by C'ellarius in LSI 

• See Excursus B. 



138 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

Gentile, 1 while Melchior Hofmann and his numerous fol- 
lowers declared that Jesus as the Son of God did not de- 
rive his flesh from Mary, and David Jor have 
used the term simply as a symbol of the Christian dispen- 
sation. In respect of Biblical exegesis D01 an theo- 
logical speculation the contributions 

tus were unquestionably the most important. In his trans- 
lation of the Prophets and his occasional explanatory glosses, 
Denck unmistakably shows that rants a consider- 

able number of the supposed Messianic prophe< 
great significance is a pregnant atise 

Concerning True Love. "Flesh and blood," he says, 
"would not understand God's love for men, were it not 
particularly manifested in some men whom people call 
divine men or children of Go d :ollow God as 

1 Men like Valdez and Vermigli have been strongly clawed as anti- 
Trinitarians. The attitude of Krasmus is difficult to interpret He 
seems to have questionod the personality of the H«dy Ghost and may 
have cherished more radical opinions than he eared to express, 

2 Allc Frophctcn nach hcbraischer sprach vcrtcut* • nao, 

1528. I quote my own copy. In Jcr., xxxi, 22 b., Denck translate* 
"das auss eym weib eyn man wirt, " which means "that a woman be- 
comes a man." To Zcch., iv, 1, he observes "die iwen sun dee ols 
seind dcr holie priester und der kiinig," the two sons of oil are the 
high priest and the king." Zcch., ix, 9, he translates "Siehe dels 
kihiig der kompt zu dir der ist der gerecht und oyn heyland, demutig 
und reitet auff eym esel, ja auff eym jungen fullin der es^ir." "he 
rides on an ass, yea on the colt of a she-ass," observing the parallel- 
ism and avoiding the absurd "and" of other versiona. To this pas- 
sage he remarks that "tl .. ir . means in H.brew one 
who receives help, that is who with his people persists through the 
power God gives and overcomes the enemy." Zcch , xii, 8, he rea- 
ders "und das hauss David wis gutter," "and the house of David as 
gods." It may be mentioned that in Daniel, vii, 25, and xii, 7, Denck 
translatod "bis auff eyn zeit und zwei aeit und eyn halbe r 
"until one time, two times and half a time," a rendering n^t found 
in the ancient versions nor in the modern translations until Houbi- 
gant, though "times" was correctly understood as "two times" by 
Minister, Vatble, i'iscator and Grotius. "Bis auff eynen geaalbten 
fursten." "until an anointed prince." Pan., ix, 25, should also be 
mentioned. It is to be regretted that Denck did not supply his text 
with more annotations. 



THE SON OF GOD 139 



their spiritual father. The more clearly this love is 
manifested, the more clearly it may be recognized by 
men; the more fully it is recognised, the more it is loved, 
the nearer is true Mnsnoflnnsfl Therefore it has pli 
the eternal love that the man in whom love should find 
its highest manifestation should be called a bestower of 
blessedn< >ple: not that it were possible for i 

man to make anyone truly Mossed, but t! would be 

so intimately united with him in love thai al work 

would be this man's work, and all the SOifering of this man 

might be inffering. This man is j 

of Nazareth." 3 In t rent yei boldly critical utter- 

ance Denck adopts the correct method by beginning with 
ins as and "goettliehe 

." then seeking tt 
figures of . and finally estimating the greata 

the man J h without any resort to the I 

nical terms of Biblical i -al uss| 

rretoSj on the other I 
the terms "fi i" and "as applied to 

by eoneeiying of him as th<* natural son oi 
through a ioperhnman birth, and by onderstanding 
Gk>d as i "in. it is of importance, how 

that in ariruiiiL' the J word Blohim 

among other pass. i -;. vi. 2, 
ing "and Pel - ealli tl who in Gen. vi, are 

said to Blohim." 1 Thr 

1 Von der xcaren 1 ', p. 3 f. In I >\ Ob Gott tin 

• ii h, Essai sur la n> 
de Denck, 1853, p. 30, he declares that God is in all his creatures and 
continues, "if God is in me then all that belongs to God is in me." 
His Ida of the divine n •<> one man, ami 

•i<\ 
1 De trinitatis crroribus, 1581, i. IB. In the margin he remarks 
"the Aldino edition is not the Septuagint." As the Complutensian 
and the Lonicer edition of 1526* have the same reading as the Aldine 
and Servetus cannot have known < Alexandrine MS. or the 

minuscules that give "angels" and not "sons of God," he seems to 
have based his assertion on the quotation in the Clementines and 



140 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

Fausto Sozzini 1 a conception based on that of Servetus 
and less radical than the view presented by Denck and 
many of the early Baptists became prevalent in Poland, 
Transylvania and elsewhere. Giordono Bruno's 2 v 
criticism of the theanthropic conception was valuable in 
so far as it tended to direct attention to the general mytho- 
logical presuppositions. This line of study was pursued 
more fully by Herbert of Cherburj.' John Tnland 4 and 
William Whiston 5 by their studies of the early Ebion 
form of Christianity were led to the eonTietion that .1 
was born of Joseph and Mary. John Locke* rejected all 
other designations of Jesus than the fifflWiilll Some of 
the Pietists, notably Edelmann, syi 1 with 

restriction. The emphasis that Edelmftnn 1 put upon the 
rationality of the Christian religion led t<» a i 
examination of such term and Logos. 

The first important monograph ol the form was 

written by D. F. Ilgen. 8 He quoted mh xamples 

from Greek and Roman writi: : hat in antiquity 

founders of states and kings in general 1 1 as 

sons of gods. This lie regarded as a liL-ur.' <>! . and 

Justin. Scholars who still qn ^ixtine edition as Septuagint 

should take a lesson in criticism fr isly enough he 

understands "a pod of Israrl" to be i!..- BOOM gHtJi X-> i'_vru§ in 
Isaiah, xlv, 3, and looks upon it in the light of the title "Cod" gireo 
to Moses in Exodus, vii, 1, a text tl as belonging to 

the priestly additions of the Persian period. 

1 Fausto Sozzini at first was not admitted into full fellowship i:. 
Baptist churches of Poland becanee he would not be baptized. But 
subsequently they returned to the brooder basis of fellowship 
claimed by Denck and welcomed him. In his attitude to Francis 
David he showed himself a less liberal attitude. 

2 Spaccio dclla bestia trionfante, ed. Wagner, II, 24S; but compare 
also the sublime passage in Dc ilonadc. p. 1 

3 The Ancient RcJigio)i of the Gen: 

4 Nacarcnus, 1718. 

6 Primitive Christianity Revived, 1711-1712. 

The Reasonableness of Christianity, 1695. 

7 Die Gottlichleit der Vemunft, 1740. 

8 Dc notione tituli fdii Dei. iu Paulus, MemorabUien VII 1795 pp 
119-198. 



THE SON OF GOD 141 



looked for its basis in the relation of the king as pupil to 
the divinity as teacher. Though Ilgen failed to reach 
the real source of the idea, his learned effort rendered a 
good service by preparing the way for a more correct ap- 
preciation. It called attention to the connection of the 
title with the kmgahip in Israel. Other kings than the 
ICeariafa had been called sons of God. The conviction 

spread that Son of God was -ianie title, CUTT 

anions the >ua to t!. ranee of Jeans, and 

naturally applied to him as tic A. In the Tiibin 

school, the ten and Son of Man cam.' to be 

ial. r epr es en ting the exalted rank . 
tie- personal humility of the Messiah, but no longer his 
two natures, the divine and the human. The question 
was • . how far Jesus had used these titles concern- 
ing himself. While th< aing literary and historical 
criticism of Bruno Bauer led him I 
cm; of him* If, Haur 

his school chmg to the idea 

Man, but were inclined to question his use of the term 
of God .its reached 

critical the middle of the nineteenth oenti 

in an able monograph, 1 in wi red that 

• nly in an ethici 

rred to hw— m as the Bon of God This conclusion 
was possible only aft<r the true si trth 

ipel had I the later additions to the 

Synoptic G had also L Hie sub 

quent study of the term infirm his view and 

to render it more unassailable. Philological arguments 

of considerable importance have added t th; 

and a more eomnreheiisrri reeled, 

with greater clearness, the origin BJ tfa of the term. 

In one respect the more disinter of recent 

years hi • itude of both the rational- 

istic and the earlier historico-critical schools, and returned 



1 Article Sohn Gvttes in Bibcllcxikon, 1875. 



142 THE PEOPHET OF XAZAKETH 



to a more original and at all times more popular point of 
view. It no longer hesitates to accept the essential iden- 
tity of the conception "Son of God" and the conception 
"God" in many important Biblical • 
is not disposed to deny that the beginning ;»ular 

identification are visible in the Scriptures. If to the ordi- 
nary Christian the term Son of I ivine 
being, the term bene Elokim, or Sons of God, suggested to 
the early Hebrews "gods," "divim- In the Sem- 
itic languages the individual is often d 1 as the 
"son" of the species to which 1: Thus ". 
of man" means "a man," and "a son of the go. : 
elokim, bar elahin) means "a god." In Qen. vi, 'A fl\, the 
bene haelohim, or "e the gods, KM thai 
daughters of men, i. c, the women, are beautiful, and 
therefore go in to them and begel with then chil 
who become famous giants, 
"god." 1 Hence the fesr that through th-ir al 
the human raee may become immorta l 
and bene elokim were arid used indiscrimi- 
nately. Thai th old haw children and that 
these should partake of their own nature, is quit 
obvious reflection. Y 

have sons as well as fathers within the divin 
When in Israel the term Blohim began to hmit 

a plural connotation and appli 

Yahwe, the term b<nc Elokim eame to have the meaning 
of "angels." Thus it was und- 

Gen. vi, 3 ff . But even the I originally gods. 

As such they had once been identified with certain 
ments, or they had presided, over the destini. | ons. 

These functions they continued 

They appeared in the tire, the lightning, the thir 
cloud, the wind ; they moved about in the | were 

the guarding angels of the nations fighting their batt 

*See Schmidt, article Angel in the N*W International Encyclo- 
paedia, 1902. 



THE SON OF GOD 143 



on high. 1 They still remained within the celestial sphere, 
and were distinct from the sons of men and superior to 
them. 

But the story :• iivine h< 

can have human offspring. The idea ifl found in many 
natioi [inordinary personalities can only b 

counted for as the offspring of gods and women, or 
deases and men. Human beings may therefore be the 
sons of gods by virtue of physical divine procreation. 
The tendency to make the eponym h< i 
women, seen in Qreeee and els c w l I also 

in ancient braeL The primitive conorel □ has 

r the most part ed by the lal 

B ri i re and there the original d 
rnity is only thinly «! in the eaae 

and a marks 

1 when it was i. 
xxxii, s. When I is address. -d as the son 

of Yahu' the Individual Israelites as his sons 

Laughters, the J' anation is that I 

inally the eponymous hero wa led as a son of 

Yahwe ;ui<i : ,. members <>t' the people as 

-h him. 
In Nrael, as in other nations, the k i i i i_r was loo, 

as standing on a higher IctcI than ordinary men. lie was 
called the t* Yahwe, Me ins the Anointed One. 

Originally the pouring <>nt oi hia head was a - 

fice, an act of worship. It was popularly thought that a 
divine spirit possessed him and that his wisdom was that 
of a divine being. 1 *'M. 1 the v. 

of Tekoa to 1 Nn to the wisdom of the gods 4 

to know all things that are in the earth." Kven after the 

exile i ndanl of the royal house who • 

*8ee especially the Book of Daniel, where the angels of Persia, 
i Israel f 

* I Sam., x, 9; II Sam., xiv, 20. 
1 II Sam., xiv, 17, 20. 

* The ' ' angel " is an after- thought. 



144 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

to sit upon the throne of David was called "a mi- 
god" (el gibbor). 1 "When in the Hasmonaean a. 
sat again upon the throne and regarded themselves ai 
sons of David, they derived comfort from the promise 
given by a prophet writing after the exil ruing tin- 

Davidic dynasty. This orael king 

as the son of Yah we. In a similar maun- aean 

king is addressed in Ps. ii by Yahwe as . bom as 

such on the day of his coronation, whom the I and 

their rulers should obey. It is evident from Pa. 
that court-poets did not hesitate I 
as "gods." When their oppom rnfully «. 

them as "gods" and f God»" h the 

prevailing custom and the Phi to it. 

Both are explained by the eourt etiqu and 

Alexandria. The Belencidae - m of 

God"; the Lagidae i ptian kings 

accepted such titles 

"Son of Isis and Osiris." I: * ural for HellenJ 

Jews to understand in the - s as 

"Son of Yahwe,' 1 "Sen of Biyon," and to use as a *. 
nym Elohim (tkeo$). I. 

used by the Etonian emperora. 1 An inacr ipU on found at 
Priene and apparently written for the rth- 

day praises Augustas less- 

edness to mankind, as a Saviour of Wtttth s. 4 

In view of these facts it is rather aston 
is so little evidence of the use of tlie tern - as a 

title of the expected Messiah. Enoch i i 
an interpolation. 5 Fourth E 

1 Isaiah, ix, 6. A son of Jehoiachin mav have been meant 
2 II Sam., vii, 14. 

'See E. Beurlier, TV divinis honoribus quos aeeeptermnt Alexander 
et successors ejus, 1890, p. 47. <smann, BibfUtndien, I. 18*7, 

p. 166 ff. Dalman, Die JVort, <lka WM f reely 

used in the East as a title of the emperora. 

*Mitteiliuuien des Kaistrlichcn ArchiiologiscKcn Instituts Bd 
p. 275 ff. 

6 In this judgment Drummond, Charlea and Dalman concur. 



THE SON OF GOD 145 



xiv, 9, are all subject to grave doubts. The Aramaic 
original is lost, and the extant versions in Syriac, Latin, 
Ethiopia, Arabic and Armenian have all passed through 
Christian hands and goffered many e-hai. cially in 

The uncertainty as to the original 

in th. in this work 

and the probably eontemporaneoni Parablei of Enoch (in 

th«'ir earliest form] Jewiab speculation concerning tlie 

ali onqnestionably i its fullest development 

Whi •:. lh informants that they 

ih. but found 

in th no prophee; siing of i son of 

i ''o'l. 1 and when the A ii, 14 

and 1' lab«»r to avid the Literal meaning of son in 

it is natural U) I ion both 

itianity i ish mode 

of thought Was the term bar Klaha time as a 

Messianic title 1 There is do dired erid 'his. Hut 

Dalman's objection on th 

mi.' is n..t uvii founded Matthew, who ren- 
ally the term "kingdom of bee 
■ in th.- i Dgdom • " employs 

the termi h a man- 

<i and In n< Elaka in tl riginaL 

If An oke ol th.- ^mg king of 

brael ai I be phraa 

Elaka, and not bar <l<ihin. which meant "angel" 

As a Imm.'ii may beoome partaker of tli«- divine 

natore by having a divine parent by pom 

of a divine spirit, so he maj divine by elevation 

into th.- celestial sphere either in tin* midst of Life through 
a translation, or at death, or on th.- last day, through . 

tion fr.-m the dead Thus Qilgamiah, Enoch and Eli- 
jah were translated, and a similar privil< i>« stowed 
on some Greek I When it I in Luke xx, 36: 

1 Oripen. Contra Cdsum. i, -10. 

'Th.' Targon tn II Sam., vii, 14, ron.lors "like a father" and 
"like a son, • ' and to Ps., ii, 7, ' ' thou art dear to me aa a eon. ■ ' 
10 



146 THE PEOPHET OF NAZ ABET II 

"They are the sons of God, being sons of the rem 
tion," this is clearly a conception familiar in Aramaic 
speaking circles. But even Hellenistic Jewi who bell 
in the immortality of the soul without a I tion held 

that the godly man was taken up to his abode among the 
sons of God to obtain his inheritance among the holy 
ones. 1 

There were, consequently, many lire illation that 

led to the use of this term, irrespectiYe of the philoi 
ical Logos-idea as elaborated by Philo. The term D 
have found an important place in t! 
ception of the Messiah as th< Lord, 

particularly after the idea of a physical divi: ition 

had developed, even if he had Dot been identified with the 
Philonic Logos. Yet without this addil 
thought the peculiar use of the tern in the ••■•nnn-nic 
creeds would not have been possible, Philo spol 
Logos as "the perfect Son," "thi 
"the second God," "God" 

article. This paved the way for the Fourth Gospel and 
the symbols of Nicaea and Dtmople, 

The term "Son of I ptic po^: 

27 times, and the term "the Eton" 9 times. Th- 
is found in Matthew 11 times, viz.. iii, 17 ' 
3, 6 (temptation), v, 9 (nam 

(after walk on tfa xvii, 

5 (transfiguration), xxvi. 68 (trial . 
cross), 43 (alleged quotation ntorion). In Mark 

it occurs 7 times, viz., i. 1 (superscription . 11 (bapti^ 
iii, 11 (demon), v, 7 (demon), ix, 7 (transfigurati 
61 (trial), xv, 39 (centurion . In Luke 
viz., i, 32, 35 (annunciation), iii. i 

ogy), iv, 3, 9 (temptation), viii, 28 (demoi "ana- 

figuration), xxii, 70 (trial). "The - .und 

in Matthew 5 times, viz., xi. 27 (thr i in hyr. 

Father and Son), xxiv, 36 (not even the Boa . E 

1 Wisdom of Solomon, V, 5. 



THE SON OF GOD 147 



(baptism) ; in Mark once, viz., xiii. 32 not even the Son) ; 
and in Luke 3 times viz., x, 22 (all in hymn to Father and 
Son). 

Already on text-critical grounds it may be shown that 
in a number of these passages the term is a late addition. 

This is the in 

Matthew, 1 and probably also m Mark. It ia also true of 
Matthew xxviii, 1!>, which originally neitli to 

baptism nor to the thn - the quotations of the 

indicate. 1 In the only remaining utl 

n in whieh "the Son" aloi the 

uncertainty as to tl. rm ; 

hut the internal eridenee ie all the d In 

other m it is likewise doubtful what the original 

• was, hut : ; | have h-ss 1 

the When sgess a trip! lonble v 

sion of the tame laying, it illy difficult to de- 

r the term oeeurred in the earliesl of them, 
as in the case i i tl. ant 

fact that tin- term Son of put upon the lips 

•ion of 1 to any 

one el pt in Matth. I his SO 

taunt him on the cross witli the assertion, utterly un- 
founded in the Synoptic repre s en tation, that he had 

claimed, '"1 am the v <d." The title i- i to 

him b; I, by the devil and demons by P 

itioningly | and I I arkm. 

Of God M in Mark i. 1. is not well supported and 
m addition: in Luke iii, 88, it is Adam who 

1 In Matth., xxiv, 36. It i> in many 0*66* MSS., in tho 

Syriao, Egyptta tnd old Lftf S ami f"un«l i.nly in another 

group tad ESthJ nd the 

Jerusalem Lootionary. On this and Mark, xiii, 32, sec Merx, Das 
nlium Matthaeus, 1 M ff. 

fore the Council at 
i in this form: u rth ami nations in my 

name." It is unfortunate that <-ur most important version, the 
Sinaitic s . the midst of xxvii, 7. 

1 Matth., 



148 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

is declared to be a son of God ; and in Matth. xvi, 16, the 
definition of the Messiah aj the Son of the living God is 
no doubt an after-thought. There is no clear instance, 
therefore, of the title being given him by the evangelists. 

According to the earliest form of the story of the in- 
fancy in Luke, Mary was the wife of Joseph and J 
their son. This story was afterward ■ be- 

liever in the virgin birth. In i, 32 ff., the angel Gabriel 
announced to Mary that the child si. 

be called "the Son of the M«>st IliL-h," beca Holy 

Ghost would come upon her. Thus div -hip was 

made dependent upon physical generation. The introduc- 
tion of this mythical concept inn belong! to a secondary 
stratum 1 and probably has a I hristian orif 

The idea that the Son of God was bon h at the bap- 

tism is somewhat older. Luke i: 

originally, "Thou art my son. this day I have beg' 
thee." This rests upon the conoeptioo 
coming a partaker of the divine nature at his accession to 
the throne. The appearance is in a celestial body* 

is probably a somewhat later idea, not W i by 

incipient docetic speculation. There is no n- 
upon the unhistorical character of th amations by 

celestial voices. 

The Synoptic gospels represent Jesus as having b 
repeatedly proclaimed as the Son of God by 
knew his real character, 4 and describe how Satan him- 
self took advantage of his knowh pt him. 1 
There is no tendency at the present time to act 
view of the supernatural knowledge and activity of 
demons. But some critics are inclined t«» the belief that 

^ee Conybeare, in Zeitschrift fur die Xcu Ttstamcntlicht Wisscn- 
schaft, 1902, p. 192 ff. 

»Cf. Hillmann, in Jahrbucher fiir protcstantische Thsolomr, 189L 
p. 231 ff. 

3 Matth., xvii, 1 ff. 

4 Mark, iii, 11; v, 7 (LuAv. viii. K 
6 Matth., iv, Iff. 



THE SON OF GOD 149 



the persons supposed to be possessed by demons actually 
uttered the words ascribed to the latter. It is argued 
that the intense political excitement, the extraordinary 

impression of Jesus' personality, and the successful cures 
that he wrought, may have caused some of these unfor- 
tunates to see in him their promised deliverer. It is not 
hope, however, but fear that the demons express. The 
very first demon that Jesus cast out is said to haw known 

him and been afraid of him. There is no suggestion of a 
political character in their words, No unmistakable Mes- 
sianic title, such as "Messiah," "Son of David" ox "King 

Of Israel r put upon the lips ol* the I 

Others are said to haw hailed him as Bon Of David, but 
no demon apparently ever did. Matthew knows 

nothing about these ut t • • onions or demoniacs. 

It is peculiar to Mark, thornd m been taken 

orer into Lake, 1 and s eems t elected with his view 

of the se c r et of Jeans 1 Ifcssiahahip, as \\ sown, 

His IsTnsaishshin may hai ooncealed from men, but 

could not be hidden bom the spirit-world, whether 

or bad. The demons must have known, in spit.- of his dis- 

l by whom they were to be 
d. From the standpoint of the beliefs then current 
this I tly intelligible. Tl ;i<>n of thei 

: attcranccs of the demons does not, of course, imply 

a d.-nial that Jesus p in. 

At I i Philippi, Peter probably dec! Thou 

art the Messiah," or "Thou art tie- Lord's M.-ssiah. "■ 
"The Son of the living God," BOt found in Mark and 

Luke, is probably s late addition. We have really no 

authentic information as to what took place at the trial 
Matthew and Luke assumed that In- must have 

been asked whether he was the Messiah, and that he must 
have preserved his Messianic incognito to the end, refus- 

1 VIII, 28. 

1 Das Messiasgeheimniss, 1901, p. 73 ff. 

'MtsJtitha ie Yahue or Meshicha d' Adonai. Cf. Targum to I 
Sum., xxiv, 7, and the Psalter of Solomon, xviii, 7. 



150 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

ing to answer the high-priest's question. 1 Mark, 
contrary, assumed that he admitted his Meesdahahip, when 
the Messiah was denned as ''the Son of the Bles It 

is evident that when these accounl d the 

terms "Son of Man," "Christ," "Son of God," and "Son 
of the Blessed" were all synonymous, or tending to be- 
come so, and that "Son of Qod" was equivalent to "< - 
so that the blasphemy of making oi I to God 

could be regarded as the charge broug] Fesus. 

Nothing could more clearly indicate the late and u: 
able nature of this narrath 

and Mark, the centurion at the mir- 

acles he had observed, exclaimed "Of i truth tfa 
Son of God." 3 The miracles recorded bj M 
a great darkness, an earthquake, the rendinj 
in the temple, and the rising of tie- <1 mbs. 

If such miracles actually occurred, it would stil! 
cult to understand h<>w a Roman - -uld DATS drawn 

the conclusion that the Jew who had b 
was the Son of God. Rut thm iieve 

that any of these things happened. Mark arly 

unfortunate in his narrative owing to his habit 
ating the accounts he copied Be mentions only the r 
ing of the veil in the temple, which 
not see, and leaves his exclamation without 
The possibility remains that the centurion may have seen 
in the unusually speedy release froi 
dence that the prophet whom the was 

a righteous man. 4 

If a cautious criticism of the reoordi -tain 

that we have no evidence for supp have 

l That is the force of the worda "Thou gaveet" Already the 
Greek phrase convinced Thayer {Journal a l Ltter'atwr*, 

XIII, pp. 40-49) of this. Concerning t ra8e ^^ ^ 

be^no doubt. See Merx, Das Evangclium Matthanu, 1902, p. 3S4. 

2 See also Brandt, EvtmgMi Bf. and 

Wellhausen, SkUmen und Fo rmrb e iU 
'Matth., xxvii, 54; Marl; xv, 39. 
*Luke, xxiii, 47. 



THE SON OF GOD 151 



been addressed by any one as the Son of God, or this title 
to have been used by himself, a strong presumption is 

1 against the genuineness of the utterance ascribed 
to him in Matth it\ (Luke x. Sttff.). Before this 

passaj read m it does in our present MBS. with some 
variations between Matthew and Lu I to have 

read in the Greek "and no one knew the Father except 
the Son, and no one the Son exeepl the Father and he to 

i the Son is willing to make a revelation." 1 This 
has b the initial i f by 

i, at a givm time in the pe the Catherho 

God and of his own peculiar Hut no other pas- 

sage in t made 

the di a oo r ery thi . or com I his 

fatherhood in meh i manner as t<> lead him to the conclu- 
sion that he alone stood in the relation to God of a true 
son. Bwald 1 Ioiil: ago pointed out that the differ- 
ence of t! rom the preaenl 

t n<>t appear in tl and Dafanan 1 

rightlj maintains that in the Aramaic text the participle 

r could not be d L If 

^•*d in t t and participle 

would indeed able, but tl et would 

not necessarily « in the 

ularly in the case of a verb of this character. 
Klopp.T* with much force urgei the improbability of the 

ttion of the son through the son. "No one knows 
the Son except the a somewhat irrelevant 

statement that lias the appearance of a gloss drifting into 
different places. A more original form of the text i 
to hav.- been, "All t ; at arc bidden from the 

and revealed to babes) have been transmitted to me by 

1 For a fuller statement of the textual conditions, see the article 
Son of Qod l.v th. writer in Enri/t -lopaedia Biblica 

IV. 

'Jahrbiichcr fur Biblische Wissenschaft, 1855, p. 160. 

'Die Worte Jesu, 1898. 

*Zeit8chrift fur H'issenschaftlichc Theologie, 1896, p. 501 ff. 



152 THE PROPHET OF XAZAEETH 

the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, 
and he to whom the Son is willing to reveal (the Father)." 
But even such an utterance is out of harmony with the 
admittedly genuine sayings of Jesus, an- an unde- 

served reflection upon his character. II teaching 

concerning God as a father and man as his child is as far 
removed from such speculations on the m leal rela- 

tions of "the Father" and "the Son humble and 

well-balanced character is from BUch assumptions of om- 
niscience and Lordship. How can the gentle teacher who 
protested against men calling him "Good Matter" on the 
ground that none is good save 1 only, be sup- 

posed to have imagined him f all kn 

edge and regarded all other men as ignorant of GodT 
Language and thought alike show that the author <>i 
passage was familiar with m< I all. of the Chi 

logical development from Paul to the Fourth QotpeL 
Brandt 1 considers it as a hymn OOnstruc 
that has been to some extent borrow. <1 from Eccleaiae- 
ticus li. 

As to the story of the wieked husbandmen, Matth. 
33-46, Jiilicher- has in a most convincing manner d.-mon- 
strated its allegorical rather than parabolic nature and 
the impossibility of regarding it in its j>r in as an 

utterance of Jesus. It differs from all genuine parabl 
its lack of verisimilitude, its many ai rary 

to fact, and the confusion of the nanati. 
tions upon later historic situations and doctrinal develop- 
ments. When Matth. xxii, 1-14 is compared with Luke 
xiv, 15-24, it is readily seen that the latter Kfl DO inal. 

The former has been elaborated -eta. 

Among these is the introduction of the figure of the king's 
son. The motive of the transformation is quite obvious. 

The present Greek text of Matthew gives the im 
that Jesus made a distinction between his God and the God 
of the disciples, his Father and theirs. This impression is 

1 Evange1ischc Geschichtc, 1S03, pp. 561. 

■ Gleichnisreden Jesu, 1899, p. 385 ff. 



THE SOX OF GOD 153 



created by the use of tli pronoun. II 

"my Father" and "your Father," but "our Father" only 
in a prayer designated for his disciples in which it may be 
supposed that he did not join. How far the author of 
our Greek Matthew was himself conscious of such I dis- 
tinction, is difficult to decide. In the case of the Lord's 

Pr ay er 1 it may be questioned whether he had any thought 
of an objection on the part of Jesm to identifying him- 
self with his diseiplee by the use of tfa in. The 
pronoun of the sec on d person plural h ly any 

emphasis in itself as it obtains by contrast with the pro 
noun of the first person singular occasionally empl 
Whether the Qreek writer thought of this is again sub- 
ject to doubt. But the East that the Synoptic parallels 
often fail to grte this personal pr ono un raisse the qui 
whether in its original form eren the Qreek Matthew had 

it. Thus the whoh- discussion about th 

"our" in the Lord i I futile by the obi 

tion that Lu! nply with "Father." 

without any prOnOUZL Of more fundamental [mporl 
however, is the fact that in the original Aramaic it is 
exceed inidy probable that no pronoun was used in any of 
the cases in question. This is not only i conclusion from 

the Qreek Ifatthi u my 

Father," the imply 

■. "Father" in all extant passages (>. i. 17, 

wiii, 10, 19, The same is true also in Luke 

(ii, 4!), x. L'L* aL). H this Araimr was made from 

I without the aid Of an earlier Aramaic transla- 
tion, the absence of the possessive pronoun either indi- 
cates that it did not exist Kfl the copy of tli text 
or | very strongly entrench ■ in the Aramaic. 
If. as seems probable, an earlier Aramaic gospel was con- 
sulted in the preparation of this version, possibly the first 
gospel used by Aral Baking Christians, the testi- 
mony is of utmost importance. Different lines of evi- 



1 Matth., vi, 9 ff.; Luke, xi, 2 ff. 



154 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

dence lead to the conclusion that Jesus said neither "my 
Father' ' nor "your Father, ' but "the Father who is in 
heaven" (Abba di bashemayya). 

In a series of reported sayings, the genuineness of which 
there is no reason to question, Jesus used the term "sons 
of God," or an equivalent, in such a way as to imply 
moral likeness to God. A figurative use of th« 
sions "father" and "son" in religious parlance, no loi 
involving the thought of physical generation or descent, 
may be traced back to tin* great prophets of the eighth 
century. In Isa. i, 2, xxx, 1, I died 

"sons of Yahwe." Lai aomj d "Ye 

are the sons of Yahwe your God," 1 and asks, "Is he not 
thy Father, thy maker?" 2 Y.-t the m kl a man 

chastens his son, so Yahv trw that the lai. 

felt to be figurative. In Jeremiah, Yahwe is sai 
be a father, 4 and asks, "How -hall I plate tin 
sons, i e., make thee a son?" 1 In Jer. xxxi, 9, Yahwe 
promises, "I shall be a father to Israel, and Bphraim - 
be my first-born." The same thought is expressed in 
Exodus iv, 22. In a post-exilic addition t<> Hosea the 
prospect is held out to the Israelite! thai ? 11 be 

called "sons of the liying God." 1 In Isa. Ixiv, S. the peo- 
ple speak of God as "our father." In 1 the 
Jews are spoken of as "the generation of thy ehfldi 
The fatherhood of God is finely expressed in tl 
found in Ecclesiastieus xxiii. Iff. L m. iv. 11, the 
Hebrew reads, "and God shall call thee son," an expres- 
sion reminding strongly of the manner in which Jesus 
referred to sonship. The same ethieal el 
to the term in the Wisdom of Solomon, ii. 
righteous man is God's son, he will uphold him." A num- 

'XIV, l. 

* XXXII, 6. 

8 1, 31; viii, 5. 

4 III, 4. 

6 III, 19. 

•11,1 (Eng. to., i, 10). 



THE SON OF GOD 155 



ber of passages in this book describe the Israelites as sons 
and daughters of God, and in xviii, 13, Israel is said to be 
recognized by the Egyptians as "God's son." In Judith 
ix, 4, the re God's "dear children"; in Esth- 

14, they are "the the only true God"; in III Ifaee. 

vi, 28, they are "t I of the most mighty and heavenly 

living God"; in Oracula Sibyllina III, 702, they are 
"sons of tie- great God"; in the Psalter of Solomon vii, 
30, they are "sons of their God"; in the Assumption of 

In IV E 
they are ipoken of as "thy people, first-born and only- 
begotten." The predominant idea no doubt was that the 
brael re sons and daughter! of Yahwe by virtu 

their connection with Yahwe'e holy people, bul eren in 
this limitation the i«l. a of moral lik< their God is 

• nally tie- thought of a spir- 
itual ■onahip baaed on ehan remed* 

It is this ethiea] lenee thai seems to have given 

exelnenrely to the term. In Mat t h. v - his con- 

!i that when the kingdom of heaven shall come, the 

n will )>• led as the sons of God, his 

spiritual kindred In Matth who show a for- 

giving spirit, and in I I !. are ipoken 

of as the sons As there is eome moral likeness to 

God in all men, all are in oi his ehildren, and he 

stands in the relation of Father even to those who are 
vil. 1 In t'art tl vil in all of God's 

ehildren. It is qoI right to call any man good. •' 

d this attribute in his own rejected 

sueh title* as "Rabbi," "Abba," "Moreh"; tor "one is 
the b - tie- father," "one is the teacher/' 

"one ." oamely God. 1 But he knows that there is 

a higher realisation of ethical likeness to God in some men 
than in others, and is not disposed to overlook the dis- 

1 Matth., vii, 11. 

1 It has been most clearly recognized by Kohler (Jewish Quarterly 
I III, p. 567 ff.) that Rabba, Abba and Moreh all refer to 

God in the saying of Jesus recorded in Matth., xxiii, 8 ff. 



156 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

tinction. Even when he spoke of the angel-like existence 
of those who were raised from the dead and were sons of 
God, being sons of the resurrection, 1 he associated with 
the term an ethical quality. They were persons accounted 
worthy of a resurrection, and they lived a life of divine 
purity. 

It is evident that Jesus derired inspiration, comfort and 
strength from the thought that In* was himself a child of 
the Heavenly Father. His ! >e of tin- fatherhood 

of God created within him ■ true filial attitude and i I 
ing of brotherly affection for all I sons 

of men. In reyerenee and I nought t into 

fellowship with QocL How richly he was rewarded, he 
himself realized, not without ■ tense of exaltation, b 
marvelous freedom from spiritual pride and selfish am- 
bition. It is not for the bistoris y tenta- 
tively and with many nusgiyingi affirm that t orda 
may have been spoken by tin >.t/ar.-th. 
and that certain «-v.nts are likely t<> have OO COJ Te d in his 
life, to presume upon a <1 most 
thoughts thai stirred his mind and fc] -motions 
that filled his heart Many tilings wbi< that 
pure and lofty spirit wen ken 
of his fellow-men by the 

more freely their d< -reat 

The vitality of their D and th. nnu . 

ence are largely due to this full and unr 
expression. There can be no doubt that the th«>u 
principles which stand forth most vividly m 
utterances occupied the largi 
that the love of God and man which I 
stamped his ideas and shaped his relations to all I 
heaven and earth. If he conceived 

God and the sonship of man as universal, am! I the 

temptation of assuming a special and un 
not attainable by others, it was because th, uess 

x Luke, xx, 36. 



THE SON OF GOD 157 



of his experience and the righteousness of his moral dis- 
position <:ave him a peculiarly clear vision of truth. So 
well did he realize his ideal of man as the ehild of the 
Father in heaven that men, fascinated by the spiritual 
beauty radiating from him, have gladly accorded him a 
title he never thought of claiming for himself, and have 
called him the Son of God. 

In proportion as the dill time inerei 

him and I whom big personality became the symbol 

and agency of man's redemption, the term Son of God 
assumed a i metaphysical tanoe. 

I -ially was t! 

s and B Ob- 

I in the Pauline liter a t u re : the lat 
as those to the Oolosi I Bebrews— show 

i more marked u -ht. In th< 

d in the Johannine writings. 
The Fourth Qospcl dsci the term Bon ol God 10 times, viz., 

tim<»ny of • ' 1 confes- 

- (belief in him, \) t vi, 

09 Peter'i confession), x. * in the Old tent), 

xi. i ffl through (7 I Martha's 

ssion), x i the 

vi/.., 

i. 18, and iii. 16, and "thy Son" once, in xvii, 11. "The 

Pound \\ til iii, 17 -i. 22 

• •t" Qod" bi used bj John the Baptist, Nathanael, P 

Martha, and the BVai 

"the Son" is as a rule employed by Jesui alone, in the 
ehnrehee whose ChristologicaJ conceptions th 
reflects the longer form was evidently used in public 

Eaith, and the short i had come into 

vogue in theological i To the Fourth 

being who had appeared in 
the f od wh«> had Bssumed human nature. It was 

not blasphemy for him t<> claim i titl»* f«-lt to be equivalent 
to "God," for he had been tent from heaven, since the 



158 THE PEOPHET OF XAZABETH 

Scriptures called those "gods" who had only received ora- 
cles from heaven. 1 In this gospel those are praised whose 
faith permits them to say "my Lord and my God," with- 
out having seen the evidences of Chris 4 rection.* 
While the character and date of the Four -1 render 
it impossible to use it as a sourer for th«* life and t 
ing of Jesus, 3 it is one of the most precious testimonies left 
us by the Early Church, not only of an important type of 
Christian thought, but. what is more, of the spiritual I 
dom with which Jesus makes those i <-hed 
by his spirit. 

It is the thoroughness with whi ! in him- 

self the ethical content of a filial attitude I I Jod that 

is the ultima: 

both in a physical and a metap 

attributed to him. This is the - the quickening 

touch he has nmunic 

dom of the spirit, and which affects the modern world" 
no less powerfully than the an<-i«nt. 

1 X. 83 ff. 
'XX, 29. 
s See chapter is. 



CHAPTEB VII 



THE LOGOS 



"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was 
with God, and the Logo* was Cod," "and the Logos became 
flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, 
the glory of an only beg son) of the Father, full 

•ruth."' Thete wordi in ti. ' ;ue to the 
Fourth Gospel 1 are the Scriptural b the doetrine 

of tin* incarnation. In the light of the ecumenic ex 

•urally understood as affirm 
nal B the only begotten of the Father, the 

•i of the Trmity. had become ■ man. The 
utterances ascribed | i not but 

appear si in | : armony with a divi- aality re- 

vealing hirns. If in th And the traditional author- 

ship seemed to preelu 

of th h wordi were setoally ipoki 

Jesus, there oonld be no doubt that he regarded hi 
as a being different in his nat m all other men, 

■tending b absolutely unique relations to tin* Father, 
holding an eternal Sonship entirely out ol tfee question in 
the case of a mere man and implying possession of the 
attributes of drity. 

But there was a tim< when it had not yet entered into 
the mind of to apply to him the 

term Logos, to speculate upon tie- relatione of the Father 
and the Son, or to assume that God had appeared in the 
When the idea of an incarnation of the divine 
Logos in Jesui was ; I in the Church, it met with 

Wohn. i, 1, 14. 

159 



160 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

strong opposition on the part of conservative Christians, 1 
who recognized its origin. They knew that the Logos- 
speculation had its source in Greek philosophy, and that 
the notion of a divine emanation appearing in the flesh 
was characteristic of Gnosticism. Hence they reg;. 
the Fourth Gospel as a work of the Gnostic t- 
thus. 2 In the Reformation Period Baptist think- • 
Italy 3 revived this attitude toward the teaching of the 
Fourth Gospel, though without committing themselves to 
the conjecture as to its authorship d 
Christian antiquity. Sine- the end of th b cen- 

tury careful examination by compefc \olars 

has rendered increasingly manifest the essential eoi 
ness of this view. The sporadic attem] I the 

Logos-idea of th 1 from its natural place in the 

history of philosophiea] though! in tl. ; >raan 

world and to vindicate for it ■ differenl origin have sig- 
nally failed. The more thoroughly I 

the more evident it !»• I hat the I 

Evangelist is only a link in a chain that I 
Ileraelitus to Athanasius and in I md these 

points in both directions, and that the rnportant 

earlier links were famished by Heraelitus, Plato, the 

Stoics and Philo of Alexandria. 

The tendencies of thought that found expression in 
Greek speculation concerning the Logos may be observed 
in the intellectual life of many other 

great achievement in giving utteran- \ and 

making it intelligible by f art ion' 

long-lived impression of the my ad power of the 

word. Many raees still preserve th that by 

the spell of the word gods can be n s can be 

bound, men can be ruled, the siek esj led. mir 

J Epiphanius (LI, 4) distinctly says of the homaelTW 

seem to believe the same things as we," and neither lrenaeus nor 
Hippolytus ever suggests that they were her 

* Epiphanius, LT. 3; Philaster, Dr km 

•See Comba, I nostri protcstanti, 1807, II, 4SS ff. 






THE LOGOS 161 



can be wrought. The rhythmical expression, the ap- 
proved formula the secret term of conjuration, is espe- 
cially thought to i icy. As among men 
aiv priests, prophets, divin ireists, magioians 
word is more powerful than that of others, so 

. in the world of spirits, prophets, interpn 
speakers whoi tard and whose word 

is never void There Nabu, 1 [ermes, 

Ifereury, Loke. As the local gods form themselyee into 
groups, faun mixed monarchies, these become the 

n of the divine council <»r the supreme ruler. 
Nalm rep] ICarduk, Hermei ipeakfl for Zeus, Loke 

ezeeutee the oomman< - the mes- 

or earriee out the will. of another. With the growth 
of philosoph :ion, the attrifa l are 

given to another; one reveali himself through another; 
the aniversal concept of divinity becomes manifest in 
each re identified. As i god may live in and mani- 

ims.-lf through another • he may dwell in a 

man and reveal his power and wisdom in him. There is 

idden and the revealed divinity. A maturer thought 
sees in man, whi wee his ides and will, a 

microcosm reflecting the r of the macrocosm, and 

postulate! a universal rot I in the phe- 

nomenal world. 

There is abundant testimony of inch i development 
Our growing acquaintance with the thought <>f India and 

:, of Babylonia and Bgypt, furn 
both its lower and higher stages. Bow Car the earli 
eontemporai] tculations of some of these nations 

supplied original impulses or new directions to the 
thought of Greek pk lingly difficult to 

bad tin- happy faculty of putting 
the in of thfir own genius so thoroughly upon any- 

thing they touched that even what they borrowed has 
all the appearance of being their peculiar property. It 
would he hazardous to affirm an influence from India 
before th n wars, and scarcely safe to insist upon 

11 



162 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAPETH 

it before Alexander or even the establishment of the 
Graeco-Bactrian kingdom and the diplomatic relations 
between the kingdom of Pataliputra and Alexandria. 
But after the middle of the third century important cur- 
rents of thought may have Bowed to the W yond 
a question Philo as well as th- -achers were 
influenced by ideas whose home was in India and Persia. 
Concerning the elements of thought that may have 
reached the Ionian Greeks through Asia Minor from the 
Babylonian sphere of influei ill in the dark. 

On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that nu: 
ous Greeks were settled in Egypt in the seventh 
and that many thoughtful men crossed the \] nean 

to behold the wonderi of t! vilization in the 

valley of the N ; le. We are better prepared t<> state what 
they might have learned of the wisdom of tl iana, 

had their acquaintance with ling 
even equal to our own, than what tually did !• 

It is not improbable, however, that the (ire.ks settled in 
the land with whom distinguished visitors came in con- 
tact were to some extent familiar with Egyptian speech 
and letters and able to give them much curious informa- 
tion. We know that in the days of Pa h priests 
in Memphis expressed ideas that ire DOfl I from 
the earlier forms of the ! d ? and there is 
no reason to believe that t: h an 
esoteric manner that inteUiga r knowl- 
edge and filled with admiration for Egyptian learning, 
may not have become acquainted with them. Be this as 
it may, the influence of native thought upon the Greek- 
speaking population of the Delta in Ptolemaic times has 
undoubtedly been underestimated. Th re many 
native Egyptians who spoke Greek, and their relations 
with Macedonians, Greeks and Jews must haV offered 
constant opportunities for interchange of thought. 

When the development of the Logos-concept ioi. 

4 See J. A. Breasted, in Zeitschrift fur Aegypti*ch< Spraeke «4 

Altertumskunde, xxxix, 1901, 1 ff. 



THE LOGOS 163 



treated as essentially a product of Greek thought, it must, 
therefore, be borne in mind that extraneous influences 
cannot be wholly excluded. In order to appreciate fully 
the significance of this idea, it is D to consider 

it in connection with th th of Greek philosophy. 

This lias recently been done by Anathon Aall 1 in a lucid 
and, fur th'* most part, convincing manner. For our pres- 
ent purpose it muff inffiee to call attention briefly to the 
sali<*nt featnref of its long history tdy in the Orphic 

religion the divine immanence is emphasised. Zeus is in 
all.- Thalei "1 as t ; n (nous) of the 

world 1 th-- i of the unity 

of God with n\' a Ecbrcw prophet; hut his 

monotheism was not based on r 1 teal for a 

tribal deity, it was founded on his conviction that the 
univ- rned by one loascm / Parmenidei dis- 

l between tic phenomena] world : 
through I iboolnte beii elf to 

human reason. V<>v this instrument of certain knowledge 
he need the I 

may not be capable of tte proof, but is ex- 

tremely probable, that Beraclitni of Bpheani who lived in 
•y I:. ( I, was i: : by Pcraian thought 

The part played by fire in b particularly 

nitieant. In view of his polemical attitude to th.- popular 
cults it is doubtful whether this impa through 

th.- i: His personal relation t<> th.- l i sug- 

riental modea of thought "Not to me," he 
ll t<> th ye should list.-n." Yet this 

1 Der Logos, I. Geschi< i hischen Philos- 

ophic, 1C9C, II. Gcschiri n der Christlichen Litera- 

tur, 1899. The most important earlier monographs are those by J. M. 
Heinze, Die Lehrc torn Logos in der gricchischen Philosophic, 1872, 
an. I Jean Revil! 'rim: du Logos dans le quatrv mr .'vanaile et 

dans les oeuvrcs de Philon, 1881. The studies of Gfrorer, Soulier, 
Med and (Jrill have also furthered our knowledge. 

' Stobaeus, Eclogae, I, 40. 

•St> . 56. 

•See Fragment 3 in Karsten, Philos-Graec, 1. 



164 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

Logos is not a personality; it is the objective, universal 
reason whose spokesman he feels himself to be and whose 
claims to recognition he urges against the assumptions of 
individual reason. It may not be permissible to press his 
professed monism into logical CO] y by postulating 

an identity of Lottos and fire. II< raditus makes an epoch 
in the history of the »n, because with him 

the term is used for the first time as a designation of 
cosmic, universal reason. 1 

Neither Anazagoraa nor Empedoelet, neither Plato nor 
Aristotle continued directly the hogoai apopnlation ol the 
Ephesian philosopher. Hut indirectly they all contrib- 
uted to a marked extent to the farther 
this idea. Anazagoraa gave to the tern Nam a richer 
content, making it si abstract 

reason, 2 and Empedoelee intr* -niritual sub- 

stance of the world the two motive for iove and 

hate. 3 This extension of the idea in I 
sonality left the apparently lifeleaa part ol the anh 
out of consideration. A dualism resulted which the So- 
cratie school aonghl I idealism. 

We have not the in rminini: precisely what 

contribution Socrates n. w movement of 

thought. It may be assumed, .vith some dejzrce 

of probability, that the view of objective reality as con- 
sisting of a system of ible conceptions ethically 
termined by the cosmic end, and of the subject as realiz- 
ing its ideal and obtaining adequate kn 
moral and intellectual self-perfe. 

Plato conceived of the universe as a ! ag possessed 

of reason, will, goodness and beauty, becoming known to 
human reason in a system of id< the 

1 See especially Anathon Aall in Zeitschrift fur Diilox>p*i* art 
philosophise Eritil; 1895, p. 217 ff., E. Pfleiderer, Die PkUoeophis 
ties Hera klit von Kphetmt im Lichte der Mvstcn<rnul«, 1SS6, and 
Schuster in Aeta Soeietatis philol. It; , 

■Mullaeh, Fragm. phil. grace, AnumgUfm ft 

' I c, 378 ff. 



THE LOGOS 165 



;ht-formi and real subsl the phenomena per- 

l through the senses. Like Socrates, he believed in 
a dtdman, sometimes conceived of w of the per- 

sonality, its reflection in an idea, sometimes as an ideal ego 
impof on the actually l sgo. 

difficult to avoid the impression that this is i He] 
rin of the Egyptian idea of the shadow, double, 
or genius, called ba or ka. A was led by hit 

found study of nature to reject Plal trine of 

thonght-forma, or aa bringing in . of inter- 

anwarranted by the facts. Bat th 
ten of ideal the conception i 
sin with its function*, he wai none the 
idealist. In this- philoaophy the tgoa is i, 

as a technical term I 
When the Stoic philoaophei 

turned t«» th.- conception of 

iitus, they irere able to draw upon tin- wealth of 

dit bequeathed by th.* B aehooL Though, in 

their endeavor to establish i n th.- uni- 

Inng aomewhat more el mcep- 

tion of vital enei ormed tie- id Plato 

into | -it: them to th.- ill-founded 

iy affirmed the 
I quality !ii»- life. Tl I . 

d Instrument m on of 

both their ontology and their etbiea. New names were 
d by them for the dii ota of the Logos. Aj 

•' the anivene it wai called Logo* 
matikos. As operative in human consciousness, i 1 

d either in th.* Light of an unexpn ulty, 

Logos < ndiatJu t<>s, or as an outgoing manifestation, ! 

Hut, how- pressed, the Logos im- 

plied the rationality of tie* scheme of existence and the 

universality i I law. The precise relation between 

the I- I cannot easily be 

defined. It would be going too far to assert that the 

m of these think. -rs was a personal entity. But it is 



166 THE PROPHET OF XAZABETH 

equally uncertain whether they conceived of the living 
macrocosm so closely on the analogy of man as the micro- 
cosm as to give it the same kind of a personality. The 
reports of Christian opponents that have the mo 
bearing on this point manifestly foffer fmm a want of 
adequate appreciation. There can hi tion that the 

Logos-conception effectively helped t a the 

greatest agency for the intellectual and moral uplift of 
the Graeco-Roman world. 1 

The influence of Philo 1 upon the furt) 
of this idea is so marked thai there is a d 
to overestimate his originality. II<- on ly baaed 

his conception largely upon that of tl. 
modifications as may 1> 
either to the strong impression of Plato' 
the necessity of bringin eoua 

ideas of his Jewish aneeaton into harmony aril 
philosophy. The ves fun im with 

the instrument for achieving the latter task in the alle- 
gorical method of inter] i not impossible 
that he was to some extent al tls<> by i 
tian and Oriental speculation. But the traces of such 
influence are more marked in parti of fa :n not so 
closely connected with the sp- 
pearance of the term Maura | Word) in Aramaic 
it has been inferred that Philo may hai I ulses 
from speculations current in the Pa .agognea. 
But the date of these Targoma rend. men assump- 
tion unsafe. The oldest of them is not li 
edited before the third century A. I)., 
with any degree of assurance to show what oral n : 

'The account of the Stoic LogM idea and its influent on Stoic 
ethics given by Anathon Aall (Q—ckUkU mw Logotidcc, I, 98-l< 
both appreciative and critical. 

*An admirable sketch of the life and writings of Philo will be 
found in Schiirer, Geschichtc dm jtidischen Volkcs tm Mftsttcf 
Christi, 3d ed., Ill, 1S9S, p. 487-081 

3 For instance, in the doctrine of r.u : .is. 



THE LOGOS 167 



ings of Biblical paaaag s were current in the synagogues 
of Pa : he time of Philo. This was already 

seen by Bruno Bauer, and is now generally recognized. 1 
Whether the Targmnie tendency to ascribe to the Memra 
in a«-tivitirs and feelin ibed by tin* Biblical 

text to God is due to acquaintance with Philo, as many 
suppose. Or il the prodnet Of ■ similar occupation with 

. philosophy on the part of Palestinian rabbis Im- 
pelled by the to transfer divine functions 
to iiiteniied; that admits of 
finite at It may be however, that in 

D writings from the 

Philo, the Logos plays no rftle, whereas the 
term Wiadom 1 in a similar manner. This 

back to Pal- idy in the book of 

'* Wisdom" that rag 

personality. It probably has a r than a 

While there is no indication thai Philo to 

t drew his Log rom this Sophia- 

o, the prevalence of thi both in I 

and b Philo renden it probable that the 

h mind began to th the former idea about 

his tine, if he was not the first to do so, he was. by 

virtue <>f his linary eapaeHy and 1 the 

rit of his writings, the for reised 
the widest in 

Philo possessed a thot familiarity 

with Greek philoaophy. Hut he was a Jew. lb* be] 

in the truth of the divine nraeles delivered to his fathers, 
and fa | that the wisdom of th- I was 

only tion of the irifldom of Moses. His trained 

mind pereerred very elearly that mucli of what was 

ascribed to the Supreme Being in the Bible was both im- 
ble and unworthy of him. But this was only so, when 

'See especially Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Autleger des 
Altrn Testament an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Ein- 
flus* betr 

* Tl.. pa seems to have been the Spenta Aramati. 






168 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

the words were understood in a literal the alle- 

gorical method he was able to see in them the same truths 
that were in different language 1 by the Gi 

thinkers. One of tin st diffieoltiei with this 

method, was the doctrine of creation. It was thr 
the Logos of the and the ideas of Plato thi 

escaped from this difficulty. Th spfrmatik»s. the 

second god, the manifestation of the Invisible and un- 
knowable Supreme Being, was I 

of creation, not indeed a few thousand the 

course of six days, but in the :i of 

things. 1 The Logos was tin- im;; -1, the r 

of his glory, the only vas with 

God, and the Logos God Through him all th 

were made, and in him all th 

in him eternally as ideas, and <»nly ai iown 

to human reason. Th.- Logos in this sense i said 

to be the means of creation. I- 
Providence, a conception thai played an in.- 
in the Stoic system, and the instr;, 
The Logos is the light which illnmines 
is a distinction betw | cndiathrtos and Logos 

phorilcos* Native Jewish thought u 

he described thr 

God, and probably also when he emphasised hii 

tance as leader of the nations, ma 

history. It has been mnch ther V\ 

Logos is a personality or not. N 

personality seems to be wanting, J 

is often very intense without implying the in a 

personal entity. If the oomph 

points in one direction, the fondness 

points in another. At any rate, it is .vrtai: 

could not have conceived of his Logos as incarn;. 

historic human personality. 

1 Pbilo could accept no doctrine of a crratio ex niXUo. See Soulier, 
La doctrine du Logos oka Phi 
'See Grossman, Question* Philo: 



THE LOGOS 169 

This itep was taken f<>r the first time, so far as we know, 

by the author of the Gospel according to John. It is 

not to be denied that Christian thinkers had before his 

n influenced by Philo, This can y be 

affirmed of Paul. There is nothing tally Philonic 

in his doctrine of the pr< neral, 

or that of the tieular. in the designation of 

. -nly m; ption 

of the Messiah as the mediator; and the idea of the Mes- 
siah emptying himself and becoming ■ man. if cherished 
nil, was certainly ncrer dr< of by Philo. Hut 

the Chrii of the to the 

I ad the I that 

be reminiscent <d Philo 'i lai Spistle 

to tli • a similarity in method, 

ptions and styh- that a familiarity with Philo - 
uiKpi.-stionabl.-. All tin- narkahl.- is tin- fact that 

only 

passa^<- in th tin that the title 

the past 
nised as an interpolation If the Dan d t<» him. ami 

unknown t<» any iimatni, 

scholars thin! tie- interpolation must bare 

written at a da:.- mneh later than that of the Apocal; 

was ultimately acquainted with 

PhilO] Illation. 1 The Alexandrian philosopher fur- 

nish. -d him not only with ideal but also with his CB 

tie phrt Without Philo 1 ;"-l could 

p have been written 1 true not only of the 

the whole work, lint althongli 

on of the L<>L r <>s is essentially that of Philo, it has 
dined by two important a ex- 

1 This lias tM 

i. L'nttrsuchun- 

gen uf tftski : ■ The latter 

scholar has done a service by examining the relative familiarity of 

PhilO and the Fourth Kvanp-list with Or My Indian, 

This acquaintance was, of cour^, urd) indirect. 



170 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

perience and his Gnostic speculation. The former gave 
him the conviction that the personality of Jesus of Naz- 
areth revealed the eternal nature of the Logos ; the latter 
furnished him with the ideas of an emanation, an ap- 
pearance in the flesh, and a redemption through gn 
or insight, an insight which was characteristically medi- 
ated through ethical sympathy and loyal lore, rather than 
through intellectual penetration. The r- it, in 

the Christological developmi 1 upon this gospel, 

the personality of the eternal Logos, the identity of the 
Logos and the man Jesus, the pi Son and 

the Holy Ghost, the incarnation, and tin* necessity to sal- 
vation of knowing tin- Father and the Son si 
mutual relations, fixed themsefoei fa toogfct 

While, so far as our present knowledge goes, this was 
the first clear expression inearnal Urine 

Logos in Jesus, there are ind that. a ] time 

when the Gospel was written, other minds were ooenj 
by Logos-speculations. Val.ntinns spoke of a pair of 
aeons, Logos and Zoe, emanating from the pair R. 
and Sige. Against this doetrine PSendo-] took the 

field, declaring, 1 that "! ^os (Word) 

not proceeding from - 

and the Acts of John als D i n 

language resembling at times that ol the QospeL Hut the 
differences are also very marked When { the 

cross is called Logos, it is evident tha: 
nation in the personality of Jesos has not ;■ 
in Christian thought. The same ii true 
Logia found at Behnese. "Lift • 
find me; cleave the wood, and I am th 
1 Afagncsians, VIIT, 2. 

3 The emendation of the text proposed by Zahn. Li P htfoot and Har- 
nack, by striking the two words aidios oul ( dT^i ova ) has bo war- 
rant in the manuscripts, is clearly dictated bv an apologetic m 
and leaves a less comprehensible text. The f the Ignatian 

Epistle to the Romans was apparently not influenced bj the Lorn 
doctrine, though in viii, 2, he tends in that dire, 
•Lofton, 4. 



THE LOGOS 171 



disappear after the establishment of the Johannine 
Christol 

Although Justin Martyr probably wrote his First 
Apology more than ■ deeade later than the appearance of 

the Fourth Qospel, it must still be pronounced uncertain 

whether he was familiar with it. If to, lie evidently did 

not I it as authoritative ll* not, he must have 

mewhat similar id< cerning the Logos 

independently, he ad< himself to phik 

phei [iiainted with Gnosticism, ami ineh id- 

were in the air. Se unquestionably knew Philo. Oon- 

aing the Lo itin taught thai 

a bypostasj the work! I, that through 

him matter itself was made, and that it t» the 

birth of POm the work. 

In the apol Athena neophilus of 

Antinch. and t!i.- author of the Bpisl the 

ted without important new 

and 
Philonie di bet we en Logos endiatl I 

and m i, ami that 

tion of the Lo L '..s as in« 1 wt*lliiiLr in all men ] 
rente the doctrine of total depravity from developing. 
The doctrine was naturally denned in oontron rith 

i, sfontanista ami other heretics by [renaeus, 1 
tullian. Bippolytns, I mdria and 1 1 

icularly int . as in 

lation of the term, he used two words to 

iresi its different and ratio. The 

Lop • development in Origen. 

Those great convictions tor which he was condemned by 

the Church anected with it. A and 

iwing element in the church felt the danger lurking in 

a philosophies] 'ion wh< in. early develop- 

ment ami natural implications could not ; ired to 

men of Greek ipeecfa familiar with their great thinkers. 

The term itself had a tendency to breed faith in human 

-..n, confidence in the divine spark in man, and oppo- 



172 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

sition to the absolute deity of Jesus and the eternal 
damnation of the unbelieving. It is significant that, while 
the Arians freely used the Logos conception, distinguish- 
ing as the philosophers of old between the vitalizing, the 
implicit, and the outgoing I 

against the term Log eted the dis- 

tinction made between / Logos pro- 

phorikos. At the Council ':>ius and his 

party proposed the formula: "We Logos 

of God." Athanasius and his party objected, favoring 
the successful formula: "We believe in the Son of 
God." 1 

The Logos found no plaoe in the ecum It 

was not adopted as a proper nam.- it tin language. 

It was translated as Word in tl; ms with- 

out any hint of its philosophies! To most 

readers of tin- Fourth Gospel it had do | 
tory. A modern theologian 1 closes 
subject by expressing the conviction U 
ant spirit has shown the I ' it is: a 

religious dream ones promising thoughtful m ition 

of the problem of God and the universe," B that 

this judgment applies only t<> its r.-li.. ase. 

It is readily seen that the problem in p] whieh 

led some of the subtlest think ntnpiity I 

the Logos-speculation still remains with us, and I 
facts suggested by the term must, on any t 1 
universe, continue to claim attention. Hut 
religious side tin am 

but rather a necessary in the 

thought. The Semitic oatiODJ v as 

apart from the world. Judaism beiV 
Greek thought and Islam bel ^ %n 

mysticism rigidly adhered to this 

transcendence. In India and - t ly also 

in Egypt, the conception of a Living m 

1 Anathon Aall, T> tr Logo*, TT. 1S9S, p. 470. 

'Anathon Aall, /. i 



THE LOGOS 173 



as its life, has taken deep roots. This thought of the 
divine immanence could not be Appropriated by minds 
accustomed to the idea of an extra-mundane divinity, 
without the introduction of an intermediate divine being. 
The incarnate L ame a school-master leading men 

to the grander conception of tin* divine immanence. This 

•• pantheism, alwaj i 
I to the danger of effacing lines of moral d< marea- 
I <d' the ethical stimulus of an int. 

•id exalted ideal It was 
ted demand for the high 
that led t<> the definil the "two natures' 1 in Christ. 

Hut tin- introdm an interm< came 

harmful hy translal tag the Ideal in1 being 

tred ai possessing an essentially diff< ttnre, 

and therefore potting "ml the r.-a<-h of realu 

or imitation. In th thought, the 

• be univ 

ami the moral and religi the lif- 

Ognition of its truly human 

ehan 



CHAPTER VIII 
THE SECONDARY BOl 

Our knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus is baaed 
solely upon the testimony of early Christian literature. 
From the allusions in pagan and .1 Kl be 

possible to gain some idea, though a v 

what Christians believ ruing t! a the sec- 

ond century. But reliable information a- 
scarcely be drawn from these BOUrees. 
tian documents, a careful historian might be in 
credit the statement thai the mai as a god by 

Christian cult-communitief in the second century had been 
put to death in Judaea by Pontius 

of Tiberius. But tin-re would 1"- room I I whether 

this statement rested upon ofl 
from Christian tradition; it would be impoeail 
mine what, if anything, had been contributed by "( 
to the religion named after him ; and t 1 -Teat 

Jewish writers of the first century would always render a 
decision precarious. 

The only Roman writer of the first century in whose 
works one would naturally look for an allusion to Christian- 
ity is Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B D.). If, as baa 
been generally supposed, there were disturbances in Rome 
in which Christians were impliea? ly at the time of 
Claudius, and there was a general tians 
by Nero, the silence of the distinur. desman, the 
teacher and confidential adviser of I be peculiar. 
His ethical, religious and philosophical fiswi were so closely 
akin to those expressed in the Pauline literature that the 
similarity attracted attention already in ti 
But the correspondence between Paul ai 

174 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 175 



most clearly reveals a puzzled consciousness of this kinship 
is a Christian forgery. 1 There is no reason to believe that 
Seneca ever heard of Jesus or of Paul. The passage in 
which, with prophetic indignation, Juvenal 2 describes the 
sad fate of those who attack "omnipotent rogues" may 
allude to a< ro, but does not in ti that 

it was Christians who were thus punished fi N laesae 

ynaj(statis. Among Qm discourses of Epictetus published 
by Arrian 3 there is one which contains a mention of 
who by custom hold what cannot be proved by 
reason and demonst ration, that God has made all that is in 
the world." The emphasis upon tl. 

i and tradition r probable that Bpiotetaa 

had in mind an an< l ian that 

a new sect. The discourse was probably dcliv- 

\ I ). In an oration to 
the Corinthians probably deliver. -d in r tic 

rajan, Dio ChrjHffeom' speaks of people who 
•t both philosophers and godft, | clear, howe\ 

he had Christians in mind. 
The to (hi in a Roman writer 

seems to be found in a ! Pliny the Younger to Tra- 

jan. 5 ] icss of this letter has been questioned by 

many scholars, but on i pounds.*. It was pi 

1 This correspondence was known to Jerome and Augustine and is 
found in MSS. of Seneca's works sin iitury. 8©e Baur, 

Seneca und Paulvs in Zeitschrift fur Wisscnschaftlichc Thcologie, 
1858, p. 463 ff. ( f. K. \V<«<t«>rl.urg, Der Urtprvng dcr Sage dost 
Seneca Christ geveten sei, 1881, p. 41 ff. 

1 Saturnalia, I, 155 ff. 

•IV 

* Corinthiaeae Orationcs, rxxrii. 

• Epistolae, X, 96. 

lor, in 1788, expressed doubts about the genuineness of X. 06 
and 97. Bruno Bauer and Manchot assumed interpolations. The 
whole collection of Epistles has been questioned by some scholars. 
This is the position of Van Manen, who, with some force, has urged 
the difficulty of assuming 124 letters to have passed between Pliny 
and Trajan in 18 months and of the governor troubling the emp« 
with so many trifles. Cf. De Gida, 1890, p. 290 ff. On the other 



176 THE PKOPHET OF NAZABETH 



ably written in 112 A. D. In it Pliny as governor of 
Bithynia asks for instructions in regard to the Christians. 
He has never been present at any examinations of Chris- 
tians, and is doubtful whether I iM be punished 
without any discrimination as to age or manifest willing- 
ness to abandon their pra< I whether the Di 
should be punished, or only the crimes found connected with 
it. From some ap he had learned that the Christians 
"were accustomed to assemble on a sta . before light, 
and to sing responsively a hymn I 
to bind themselves by an oath, not to any vrickedneaa, 
not to commit theft, nor robbi 
cation, nor denial of a pledge r- 
would separate, and then 

eaten in common." Trajan that they should be 

punished when convicted of being Chi n proper 

trial, but thai honld not be hunted out. 1 irase 

"as to a god" probably ahowi that Pliny understood 
"Christus" to be a man. There 
knowledge on his pari of the lif» 

Soon after 115 A. 1). la. it that part of 

torical work which has been di I The Annals. In it 2 

he mentions the ease of Pomponl I was ac- 

cused of a "foreign superstition" in 58 A. D. This has 
been supposed by some srh. i] i the 

Christian religion. But llasenel. . 
able that Judaism is meant. In dea 
Tacitus 4 speaks of the peraecntion of s ae- 

hand, it is extremely difficult to imagine any I writer to hare 

gone to the trouble of forging so large a numl>er of epistles for the 
purpose of introducing a decree which is anything but an edict of tol- 
eration. See on this point especial: - 7 <ihrbuchfr fur protctUM- 
tischc Theologic, 1891, p. 645 ff. 

1 Plinii EpistoliU-. x. 

8 Ab excessu divi Augusti, xiii, 32. 

'Jahrbiicher fiir protcsiantische Thcologit, 1SS2, p. 47 ff. 

4 1. c. y XV, 44. There is no reason to doubt that this chapter was 
written by Tacitus. There may be a question of the accuracy of his 
information. 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 177 



count, however, raises some grave questions. Tacitus sug- 
that to turn the suspicion away from himself, Nero 
'.-used the Christians of having caused the great 
fire at Rome in G4 A. D. The Christians, I were 

named afl . who in the reign of Tiberius had 

put to death by Pontius Pilate. Haying been repi 
first, this exeerabl itition had broken o . not 

only in Judaea, but als-» in Rome, whither all atrociouf 
shameless thingi find their way from different parts of the 
world. Those that wn aider tor- 

and then a : \ fated, not ind- 

having earned the fii d of tin* human race. 

thai they had 

•y. What "they eonfeai and have 

that the] I . but that they had earned the 

Of I r, the ■- nwd wen 

I guilty, but of "od humani." This can 

in eonrt 
Sehni do donbt right in d it possible '"that 

ie into question at all, 

and that 1 

the nam- I am from t! time into tl 

I iiricus; nius- doei not at all say 

the < !hri mil- the tire ; and 

an be- 

mish- 

\m of which these writ hare had a tradition. 

Hut even if there n able doubt in regard t<> the 

vristians and the unfavorab! 
•lis is likely tO have ( ■ wd from 

rvation. <»r the aeeoonti «'i* eontempon 

rather than from a !<■ . the <pi. 

still remains, whether he may not hav I from official 

reports the fact that J tfa in the reign of 

1 Encyclopaedia WbHca, <ame of, vol. 1, eoL 

1 Dc . \ I. LS. I! h written ca. 120 A. D. 

l l. r. 

12 



178 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea. 
In the present state of our knowledge, it is quite impossible 
to say, whether a report of the crucifixion of Jesus was sent 
to Rome by Pontius Pilate, and was seen in the archives there 
by Tacitus, or whether the historian gathered this piece of 
information from some Christian source. The probability 
of such a report depends upon the very uncertain part 
Pilate had in the tragedy, 1 and the importance he attached 
to it. There is little reason to believe that the Acts of 
Pilate referred to by Justin differed essentially from the 
late forgeries known to us by that name. 

Suetonius 2 relates that Claudius 41-54 A D.) expelled 
the Jews from Rome because of a tumult they had made 
under the leadership of on historian em- 

ploys the term "Christiani" in the "new and 

malicious superstition" againel which he had heard that 
Nero used such drastic moMOi no reason to sup- 

pose that he confused "Chrcstus." t l h agitat 

Rome under Claudius, with " Christ us," the prophet ap- 
pearing in Judaea under Tiberius. But <an it be 
affirmed that there was a Roman d name of 
Chrestus in the time of Claudius. There may have been 
some confusion in the written sources or tradition upon 
which Suetonius drew. throws no light 
upon the subject. 

Overbeck 3 has conclusively shown that a number of edicts 
of toleration ascribed to Hadrian ami the Antonines axe 
Christian forgeries. The alleged letter of Hadrian to 
Minucius Fundanus is no more likely to be genuine than the 
others. The contrast to Trajan's rescript is very marked. 
Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditati. 

to the eagerness for martyrdom shown by th iane. 4 

It is possible that Apuleius in 168 A. '< A\on 

of Christians, in terms indicating bitter prejudie 

1 See Ch. X. 

*l. c, V, 23. 

'Studien cur Geschichte der altcn Kircht, \ 

* Meditationes, XI, 3. 



THE SECOXDAEY SOURCES 179 

he does not mention the name. 1 Lucian, of Samosata, in 
Di morte Fcngri/d, written in 178 A. D., shows some ac- 
quaintance with Christianity. Concerning the founder of 
this faith he knew that he was crucified in Palestine. It is 
not improbable thai in his description of inna he had 

rome extent the Legend of Ignatim in mind.- He also 
appears to have been familiar with the Apocalypse of John. 8 
in his " I written in 178 A. 1)., seems 

to have der i information partly from the Gospels, 

inelnding the Fourth Gospel, partly from conversation with 
DO the la' •«• he apparently gleaned no ad- 

ditional fact, but only tl h int e r p re ta tion of 

the narratives given in the Gospi la l^ k characteristic of 
liis attitude that he i nti <>f mirac 

wrouLrht by bough explaining them as performed by 

[bed to him • 

pel as well n, while he r 

as legends the if - about his birth, death i 

loei not add a rringi drawn from 

any in 1 from 

Tie it in extant J ritingiofthe 

first two cento] nlenc f Philo and Joseph 

PhilO was still Living at the time of the accession of Claudius 
in HA!) I id with his 

em' I I)., and was intimately 

ated with the religkmi I Judaea. 11- was fa- 

miliar with the various religious parties, Pharisees, Sad- 
ducees and I, hut he apparently had no knowledge 

or of the Christian Church. Still more re- 

1 Metamorphoses, IX. 

* This idea has been expressed by several scholars. Pfleiderer in the 
second t*<liti<m <>f his I'rchrustt ntum s it as an Bridi 

he genuineness of seven of the Ignatian epistles which he dates 
ISO A. I». hi reality U •• raid only show the development of the 
I 7^ A.I). 
M !J. 

4 See the excerpts in Origen, Contra Celsum. 
: An explanation of this is suggested on page 31. 



180 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 



markable is the absence of any allusion to Christianity in 
the works of Josephus. The historian of his people lived 
both in Galilee and in Judaea, was in his youth a seeker 
after truth wherever it seemed to offer itself, became a mem- 
ber of the Pharisaic party, and described, in his histo 1 
works, not only the political fortu . but also 

to some extent their religious development, and carried his 
accounts down toward the end of his own life. wish 

War" was written in its Greek form 1 75 and 7 

D., his "Antiquities" in 94 A. D., his work "Ago 
Apion" ca. 100 A. D., and his • r ' soon after. 

These works have been preserved by the ( hun-h, and n- 
the Synagogue. Christian readers an I but 

note with astonishment the fact that Josephui 
to say about Jesus. Hence thej 
more or less clumsy Interpol m patriel 

and late manuscripts show. A passage in An- 

tiquities xviii. 63, <i4 i follows: "At this time Jesus 

appears, a wise man, if indeed it is proper to call him a man. 
For he was a performer of marvelous works, a teacher of 
men who receive the truth wit ; iself 

many Jews and also many G He was the Messiah. 

And when Pilate had punished him 1 : the 

accusation of our foremost men, tl 1 him at 

first did not cease to love him. For h<- appeared t<, them 
alive again after thtf . the divine prophet! h;r 

predicted this and a thousand other wonderful thii 
him. Even now the people named after fa s has 

not ceased to exist." It is admitted on all hands that 
Josephus cannot have written this paragraph as it stands. 
A number of scholars have maintained thai it contains a 
genuine nucleus. There is no agreem en t, BT, as to 

what the historian could have written; and the few i 
that are left must themselves be ' iral 

emendations or fresh modern interpolations to make them at 
all plausible. 1 It has therefore been the growing conviction 

1 For such attempts soe particularly Gi«*1er. Kirchrngrsckifhtr 
Ausgabe, 1844-1848, p. 81; Wiesoler. Jnhrbuchsr fur ***** Tkcol- 



SECONDARY SOURCES 



of scholars since the sixteenth century that the entire pas- 
sage is the work of a Christian hand. Origen did not find 
it in his text of Josephus; but it had been written before 
Eusebius composed hi- ry ca. 325 A 1). 

That the reference to "the brother of -I <> is called the 

Chris; by name" 1 is also a Christian interpolation, is 

rendered probable by the fact that Origen found in hit 
of Josephus a passage concerning lit in our 

manu ! clearly of < m. Some 

• assumed that the original * Mined an 

ion to Jesus so objectionable itiana that it was 

oeb an assumption. Tin' 
' >es not necessarily imply ignorance on 

•ily that to his mind it did not 
possess sufl'n-i'-nt i litirally Of philof 

or that he thought it an- 
n ■■ r to the mbjeet Wt feu 

oa] works 

•n toward tin .uiry liki-wi.se ma- 

-'•*su8or( ty. 

In the I edited Irada ca 200 A. 1)., the 

•:inian Talmud. EL Jose bar 

1).. ::■ d by 

Ahina and Rab Jose ca. 600 A. I)., as well 

• 
:ial references to Jesus and the Chri designated 

9M Minim. No author t -•••ntury, however, are 

ogxe, 1878, p. 86 ff.; Volkmar, Jesus Sasannus, 1088, p. 885 ff. ; 

iffM Of 

the entire passage haa been shown especially by Gerlach, Die Weissa 
gungen des Alttn Testamtnts in den Schrxften des Flavins Josephus 
und das angeblxche Zeugniss von Christo, 1863; Keim, Ga>< 
Jesu von Nazai 7, p. 11 ff. ckrift, 

1882, p. 593 ff. ; Nioso, De testimonio Christian** 

phum, 189 ZcitaU 

i<su Christ I ff. 

1 Antviuitates, XX. 
a Bibliot>, 33. 



182 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

quoted as mentioning either. 1 It is in the reign of Trajan 
that R. Joshua ben Hananiah 2 speaks of Minim and R. 
Eliezer quoted a legal decision of Jesus on the authority of 
one of his disciples. 3 According to R. Eliezer 's informant, 
the question had arisen whether it was permissible to bring 
money gained by prostitution into the temple, and Jesus 
had decided in the affirmative, citing Micha i, 7 and adding 
"it has come from uncleanness and it shall go to the place 
of uncleanness." The genuineness of this saving 
improbable. But there is good Talmud ii* authority for the 
view that in the reign of Trajan a marked hostility ex 
between Jews and Jewish Christians Kbionites, I 
araeans 4 ) ; while this cannot be shown to have existed before 
his time. In the decades immediately lie publi- 

cation of Celsus's book, the c >us presented 

with variations in the Talmudic literature I I e shaped 

itself. There is not the Blight * it was based on 

any other sources than Christian writings. The peculiarity 
of this Jewish interpretation - partly to an 

honest attempt to discover the historic truth behind what 
was recognized as legends, partly to an u 
of the new direction Christian thought was taking 
to a sense of danger to Judaism its. If. One c loobt 

that Jewish teachers honestly believed * 
virgin-birth to be designed to OOTer up the disgrace of an 
illegitimate birth, that the report* I ated 

the place where Jesus aequi red that 

the miracles ascribed to him wi : by 

magic, that his intimacy with women implied immoral rela- 

1 The silence of R. Jochanan ben Zakkai is moet remarkable, as he 

frequently disputed with Sadducees (Jadaim, IX, 6), Boethuaian* 
(Menachot, 65), and Pagans (Chullin, jth, 8). 

'Shabbath, 116a ah 

'Aboda Zara, 16b, 17a; Koheleth rabba to T, 8; Josephta ChuUin. 
ii, 24. 

*Joel, Blicke in die BeU<iionsgcschic> tf., is no 

doubt right in finding "the house of the Ebionites" and "the houne 
of the Nazaraeans, referred to in Shcbbath, 116a, under the changed 
form "house of Abidan" and "h 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 183 

tions, that his death as a blasphemer was brought about in 
accordance with the prescribed methods of judicial pro- 
cedure. The deification of Jesus, and the practices of some 
Christian churches, including apparently the use of images, 
could only be looked upon with alarm. .As an ever increas- 
ing number of Jews were driven away from Palestine and 
scattered in the Roman world, there was danger both of their 
being affected by the tendencies of thought prevailing 
among Hellenistic Jewi and of their abandoning am 
customs under the pressure of Roman persecution. 

an nor Jewish sources -rive us any reliable in- 
formation concerning Jesus. Such knowledge as we find 
can everywhere be traced t an sources, with the 

possible exception of a s t by Tacitus which may 

have been derived from official Roman records. But the 
bulk of early Christian lit does not field much more. 

lratus (ca. 125), Aristides (ca. 129), 
of IVlla (« tin (ca. 150) and Tatian (ca. 

170) present the fiewi of Christian thinkers in the second 
eentory; but an occasional saying of Jesus de- 

rived from some lost gospel and at least worthy of consider- 
ation, they throw no light on thfl teaching of Jesus. Still 
leas information is to he obtained from swell works as The 
Teach d of a Jewish writing 

of uncertain lied The Two Ways, and a Christian 

hortatory address, written ca. 150 A. P., The M. -moire of 

I «-a. 180 A. P.. the Treatise on the 

by Athenairoras, of about the same age, and 

the fragments of commentaries and dissertations 

that hav me <h>wn to us. Valuable as are the excerpts 

of Papias, they do not add a I liable fact to the 

knowledg an from the 8yno] i. Among the 

apocalyptic writing of the Karly Church the most impor- 
tant seem to be the Bt velation of John, the Revelation of 
Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 
the Sibylline Oracles; but it may be doubted whether any 
Jewish apocalypse was preserved by the Church without 
some interpolation, correction, or accidental change. Such 



184 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

alterations of the original text are plainly visible in the 
apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra, in the Ethiopic Enoch, in 
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in the Testament 
of Abraham, and in the Jewish Sibylline books. None of 
the Christian Sibyllists seems to have lived before the sec- 
ond century. Hermas apparently wrote fa herd 
about 150 A. D. The Revelation of probably 
composed not much later. It is particularly important for 
the light it throws upon the influence of Orph: 
on the development of Chr j. It was hiirhly 
esteemed at the end of the seen: from 
the fact that in the Mural orianum it is mentioned si-: 
side with the Revelation of John. Ckmeerning the Revela- 
tion of Paul little is known. 

The Tubingen school regarded the Revel I John as 

the genuine work of John, the 
disciple of Jesus, and ooneeqnently as i 
primitive Jewish Christianity. This m 
as practically all independent stnd In 

its present form, this apocalypse cannot I D the 

last years of the reign of Domitian This has bet 
quite conclusively by Ilarnack. 1 m, Baur was 

right in feeling the presence here and there of a d 
Jewish spirit. The explanation Lies in the fact that some 
sections, notably chapters xi-xiii. xvii-xviii. seem to have 
been derived from a previous! ypse. 

From different points of view this conviction has 
reached by Vischer, Ilarnack, Gunkel, Weilhl 
erer and others. This Jewish apocalypse pro! 
to the time immediately before the eonqq 
in 70 A. D. Wellhansen is probably right in assi 
the same period the little Apoeah 

the Synoptic Gospels (Matth. xxiv. Mark xiii, Luke xxi). 
It may have formed a part of the work quoted in Luk 
49 as "The Wisdom of God." Whether tl 
a Christian product, may be doubted. At any rate, a long 

1 Gcschichic dcr Altchristlichcn Litcratur. \ ' ff. It is 

probable, however, that there are later addit 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 185 

period must have passed, as AYellhausen has recognized, be- 
fore the reference of the personified Wisdom to the murder 
of Zechariah ben Barachiah, which occurred during the 
siege of Jerusalem, can have been placed upon the lips of 
A careful criticism can no more use this Synoptic 
Apocalypse than the Revelation of John as a source of the 

t'-a<-lii tilt i ding Cram his immediate disciples. 

Old Christian literature was rich in Acts of tie- Apostles. 

:it ish Acts of 
Travels of of I'aul. 

Paul and Thecla, Trawls of . of John, and 

lly inter- 
esting, tx tlic wider prevalence of th 
culiar type of thought found in tie- Pourtfa QoBpeL An 

appreeiatiTe of this literature | • . 1 1 \ been 

given by Pfleideri ii not pi that any of these 

i our knowL of the thought of 

his immediate disciples, \cts brin 

nearer to the beginning* The compiler of this work intro- 

in the | as identical with th«- author 

of the Third Gospel and literary methods ai 

harmony with this claim. The TfLbingen school found in 

purpose tO doai 

d Pan! and unity. 1 1 

ess of the Panlin( the Galatians, the 

Corinthians and the Romans is admitted, DO Other COnclnsiOB 
- at first possible, SO marked q the 

Paul of t] On the other 

hand, those who. like Bruno ! .oman. Steck and Van 

Manen. think it impossib Paul, 

and find in Acta tation of tl. le that is 

■r to the historic reality than the radical of the epistles, 
as far from making the compiler an Impartial and 
thoroughly reliable historian, [ndependenl scholars are 
now all agreed as to the inability of the author to place him* 
self objectively in the period he describes, and recognize 
that this failure is due, not so much to any definite purpose 
1 Das UrchrUtcntum*, 1902. 



186 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH 

or tendency, as to the natural prepossessions of his age, and 
his distance in time from the events related. Hence he was 
unable to comprehend the nature of the early gift of ' ' speak- 
ing with tongues," and caused the apostles to preach in 
languages they had not acquired, ascribed to them all kinds 
of miracles, failed to appreciate the conflicts that once must 
have raged, endowed Peter with the spirit of Paul, and 
made Paul walk about with a shaven bead to show the 
myriads of believers in Jerusalem his zeal for the Law. 
He probably wrote in the beginning of the second century. 
But it is also generally admitted to-day that he used 
earlier sources. The first person plural found exclusively 
in some sections reveals one of these. T! Source" 

rightly ranks among the earliest of our New Testament 
writings. There is no improbability in the assumption that 
it was written by one of the eornpanions of Paul, and the 
most plausible theory is that he was none else than Luke, 
to whom for this reason the whole book was ascribed, and on 
account of the preface consequently also the Third Gospel. 
While this source gives us some information of the most 
authentic character concerning Paul, it adds nothing, how- 
ever, to our knowledge of Manen, who regards 
Luke as the author of the " We-Souree," suggests that in 
the first part of his work the compiler used two other 
sources, one being th :-,'' and * r the 
"Acts of Paul." 1 Neither of them has been preserved in 
the original form, and there is every indication that the 
compiler has used them with the same freedom of modifica- 
tion and expansion that characterizes his gospel, but also 
with the same retention of early and valuable features of 
tradition. Thus it is manifest that mar. is cluster 
about the nucleus of fact in his account of the establishment 
of the church in Jerusalem, and that it would be hazardous 
to affirm that the time indicated is more correct than the 
manner described. Yet there is no reason to doubt that the 
conviction that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and 

l De Handelingen drr Apostclen, 1890; Eandleiding poor de oud- 
christelijke letterkundc, 1900. 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 187 

would return on the clouds to restore the kingdom to Israel 
some time after his death, brought together a group of be- 
lievers in Jerusalem who, under the influence of his spirit, 
shared with one another what they had, and lived in accord- 
ance with that word of the Blaster which has been preserved 
only in A It is more blessed to irive than to receive." 

The epistles of the "apostolic fathers," Barnabas, 
dement, Ignatius, Poly carp, are important for the testi- 
mony they I warning the reli or eeele- 
otionf of the period in which they were written, 

and also for the indications they give, by direct quotation 

or allusion, of the Christian writingi then extant. It is 
i by critics of all schools that the epistle of Bar- 
nabas cannot have 1 n written by th nion of Paul, 

but was composed, probably in Alexandria, in the reign of 
Hadrian 117 1 \& A l> A hiiiiiIm re as- 

eribed to Clement dm. The most important among 

these are two to the ehnrch in Corinth, the Homilies 

and the Recognition!. It is universally admitted that the 

Homilies and re later than the . and 

of different anthorahip. The anti-Pauline "Sermons of 

. " one of th> used, which ,lly to D( 

tingniahed from the Pauline "Preaching may 

have been written in its eai nn about 185 A. D. 

What otic 1, what the relation of the 

Homilies to the Recognition! is. and whether these v, 

known to Origan, mpiled in th I or in the be- 

ginning Of the third century, cannot, in th ate of 

the question, be decided The ■eoond epiatle of Clement is 
pneraUy regarded as peendonymona, and Qarnaek 1 is 

probably ri«_rht in oonaidering it as a sermon preached not 

long before 170 A. D. 

The first epiatk aent does not itself claim to be a 

work of any man, but to be an epistle of the church of Rome 
to the church of Corinth. 1 -ments of the 

memoirs of Dionysius of Corinth, written ca. 170 and pre- 
served by Eusebius, it is evident that it was then supposed 

*Gcsehichtc dcr Altchristlichcn Littratur, TI, 1897, p. 438 ff. 



188 THE PEOPHET OF XAZAEETH 



in Corinth that the first epistle was written by Clement. 
Dionysius probably assumed that it must have been written 
by the bishop of Rome at the time of the disturbance in the 
Corinthian church, and that Clement then held that office. 
This may have been the view of his contemporaries in Rome, 
as excerpts from Hegesippus in K bow. The source 

of both statements may have been a list of Roman bishops 
drawn up, as Harnack h;; , r before the time 

of Hegesippus, and apparently used by | | in 180. 

This list mentioned the Corinthian disorder and the dis- 
patch of the letter as occurring in ie of Bi 
Clement. But it lias been conclusively mon- 
archical episcopate did n in Home before Anicetus 
(156-166). ''Bishop ("lenient" menu to be a creation of a 
later time, based on the mention of an otherwise unknown 
Clement in Philippians iv, :■;. or on the vairue memor 
Consul Flavius Clemens, put to death tian for 
"atheism," Jewish leanings and □ or a con- 
fusion of both. That the have written this 
epistle is clear from the fact that the author was manif 
a Jew. There is no allusion to (inostie heresies, and no sign 
of the monarchical episcopate in the epistle. But botl 
these phenomena appeared later in Koine than in the East. 
The author was apparently familiar with I Peter, which 
was written at the end of Trajan's reign. A date about 
125 is most probable. 

Fifteen epistles have beei at ins of Ant inch. 

Two to John, and one to the Virgin afa xtant only in 

Latin, and were published in 1495. Thy are universally 
rejected. Of the other twelve there is a longer and a 
shorter recension. The former is represented by the Latin 
text published in 1498, the Greek text pi 
and the Armenian text published in ITS:? and 1849. It 
tains, in addition to a letter sent by Mary of Cassobnla 
(Castabala?) before the departure of IgnatiM for Rome, 
his answer to her, written in Antioch. the e: the 

churches in Ephesus, Magnesia on the Maeander. Tralles, 
and Rome, written in Smyrna, the epistles to I 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 189 

Smyrna, and Polycarp, written in Troas, the epistles to Tar- 
sus, Antioch and Deacon Hero of Antifloh, written in 
Philippi, and the epistle to the church in Philippi, sent from 
Rhegium in Italy. The latter recension seated by 

an Anglo-Latin version published by Usher in 1(144, contain- 
ing the same works, though shorter in some of the epi 
and the Greek tiding in the middle of the 

ninth epistle, publish Voss in L64 ! 

Syriac text, containing the epistles to Polycarp, Eph< 

and Bonu published bj eeially the let- 

ter to the Ephesians is much than in either of the 

Greek ons. 

All Iirnatian i-pistles Wl I 16108, 

Calvin, Chemnitz, Dallai ind other* An bo- 

at distinction was made in 1623 by Vedelius irho sailed 

attention to tie- fact that mil J known to 

Busebius, and I all but these, sin.-,' then a pra 

Mient hi reached anions scholars, Catholic and 

Protestant alike, that tie- CaSSODOla, the 

ana, the Antioehenes, Eero, and the Philippiaus, 

ly claim to have been written by Ignatius. 

them can be earlier than the beginning of the third century, 
and the Philippic I ly much later; but the igno- 

rance of Enaebioi hem doi 

necessarily show that they belong t<> the fourth oeatnry. 

Only thn f the » known bins are 

quoted by earlier wri- uriously enough, these are pre- 

tlie three epistles t<> the Bpheaians, the Romans ami 

Polycarp, which are found in the Syriac . published 

by Cureton. The epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp is men- 
tioned in a spurious addition t<> Polycarp 'a epistle to the 
Philippians, that to the Romans was known t«» [renaeus, and 
that to the Ephesians t<> I hrigen. Hut even this earliest col- 
lection of three epistles seems t«» have had a gradual growth, 
pistle to the Romans is different in style and character 
from all the others, and appears to be the earliest. The let- 
ter to Polycarp is clearly later. Ephesians seems to have 



190 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

been expanded by the hand that wrote Magnesians, Tral- 
lians, Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans. 

Romans is evidently the starting point of this Ignatian 
epistolary literature. There if of the great 

interest of the later epistles: prevention pread of 

Gnostic heresies and inculcation of obedience to the bishop. 
The absence of any allusion to the authorit .<>p is 

all the more remarkable, if the monarchical episcopate, in 
the other epistles deemed of such importance that no church 
can be conceived without it. I unknown in Rome. 

The whole emphasis is on the » be- 

come a martyr, and his anxiety 1 >f the 

Romans prevent the fulfilment 
ligible in the first effort to write in the nan. 
and presupposes only the legend which Home 

to suffer his martyrdom there, and th< that 

morbid aspiration for martyrdom to which Marcos Ann 
Celsus and Caecilius in the Octavius of Minucius Felix refer. 
How early the legend of I 
do not know. It is possible that Lucian in 
morte Percgrini, written 17 s - A. I>., draws upon th 
Ignatius for his sketch of Pro te m Pc r cg rin na, the philos- 
opher who publicly burnt hi: h in < Hympia in 
165 A. D. All critics admit that by that t 
epistles are likely to have been in Hut tl 
rests on no solid foundation ; it is manifestly an imitati 
Paul's journey, and can be shown t<> tion by abso- 
lutely unimpeachable big :.;. Johannes Ma- 
lalas, the Antioehene historian, on th.- sood old 
source, states that Ignatius Buffered martyr 
Rome, but in Antioch. in December. 115 A IV. when Trajan 
was in the city, and the fact is independent h 1 for 
by a Syrian ehronographer. The mo- con- 
trasts with the reigning tradition in the church, and the 
more difficult it is to conceive of a motive for its invention, 
the more the conviction forces itself upon us that this is the 
historic truth. Neither Romans alone, nor the thr 
epistles, nor the seven known to Eusebius, nor the twerte 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 191 

found in the Greek manuscripts, any more than the whole 
number of fifteen ascribed to Igmatius, can be regarded as 
genuine. Some who have maintained the genuineness of the 
seven have been willing to go as late as to 130 and even 140 
A. D., assuming Ignatius to have been living as long as that. 
The fourth decade of the second century is not improbable. 

While it may not be capable of strict proof, there is no 
good reason why the main pari of the epistle of l'olycarp to 
the Philippians should not haw been written by the Bishop 
of Smyrna who | tyrdom in 166 A. D. When 

the epistle was written is uncertain, hut probably not before 
the middle of the century. It was known to Ircnaeus in the 
reign of Commodus (180-192 A D.)« Ch. xiii, not found in 
t, parts of ch. ix, and other sections, are inter- 
polati 

Seven so-called Catholic Bp .merit 

are Meribed to immediate it 

would bfl of the profoonde^ interest to thfl historian, if it 

could he shown that - lition was right in re- 

gardiiiLT two 1 as the authors of the epistles 

of James and dude. How much infotll meerning 

his early life they mibt have possessed What light their 
manner of thought and dd throw upon his! 

But there is not the ilighteal indication in the spittle of 

I that the writer, who styles himself "a servant of God 
and of Jesus Christ." either WH teamed t<> speak 

in the name of. the brother of Jesus. Jacob was a common 
name lUMMlg the Jews. The author was a Belles 
to whom the church was the new Israel, t: on of the 

validity of the letter of the law and the perpetuity of the 
cult no longed 1, the onc-sidedness, artificiality and 

tendency to anti-nomianism in the Pauline doctrine of jus- 
tification by faith were painfully apparent, the highest 
ethical demands of the law and the "golden rule" of Jesus 
formed together the "royal law of liberty," and the social 
and economic inequalities constituted the gravest danger of 
the church. The epistle was probably written ca. 150 A. D. 
Jude presents itself as an epistle written by a brother of 



192 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

James. By James, no doubt the brother of Jesus, the head 
of the church in Jerusalem, is meant. This cautious term 
seems to have been occasioned by the idea that Jesus cannot 
have had any real brothers. The author is far removed 
from the apostolic age. He looks back and calls to mind 
"the words spoken aforetime by the apostles of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." The heretics he combats seem to belong to 
the Gnostic school of Carpocrates, or his son Epiphanes. 
His quotations from Enoch are n< te, as 

we do not know whether chs. xxxvii-lxxi formed a part of 
the volume with which be The epistle can 

scarcely have been written bef< L D. 

Five epistles are assigned by tradition to immediate 
disciples of Jesus, thr«» to John, and I 
makes no claim for itself. It lently ai 

apostle John, chiefly b of its unmistakable nmil 

to the Fourth GospeL The decision u I (Joe- 

pel necessarily affects the epistle, whether it is placed im- 
mediately before or after the g <*st prob- 
able view is that it was written later than the (lospel, not 
long after 140 A. D. by a disciple 

in his name. II and III John * an- 

tilegomena and, like -I ml.' and II Peter, 004 bond at all in 
the early Edessene Bible. They batty writs 

the same man, ea D, Whether he meant t 

the impression that he was the • John," a 

Papias knew as a contemporary of Aristion and a diff 
man from the apostle John, is doubtful. lie does not 
his name. 

I Peter claims to be an epi^- ter to th <ion, 

i. c, the scattered Christians in Poi PP»- 

docia, Asia and Bithynia. Its courage I 

to suffer patiently persecution for the Christian name. The 
epistle shows a marked dependence upon some of the 
Pauline epistles, including Hebrews. The earliest persecu- 
tion known to have affected this region is that under Trajan 
to which the letters of Pliny bear testimony. The epistle 
was probably written not far from 117 A. D. II I 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 193 

claims to be the work of Peter, an eye-witness of the trans- 
figuration, and the writer of the first epistle. It is recog- 
nized by all critical students that the claim is false. It v. 
probably written about 17U A. D. Instead of being the 
precious words of brothers and difl 

sties are the otter I men who Lived from eighty to 

one hundred and thirty years after his death, full Of inter 

and vital truth, but throwing no light on his life or teaching. 

Fo u r te en epiatlei fa tribed to Paul. That to 

the I doubted by ( iarlstadt, l ler, 

ami others before the d and to-day uni- 

y another author than Paul, was 
babry written in ward the end Of Trajan's n i 

somewhal earlier than 1 Peter.. The ao-called pastoral 

. I and II Timothy and Titu .not included in 

afareion's collection of Pauline The genuinen* 

Of 1 and II Timothy was doubted by .1. \\. | '. S.-hmidt, that 
of I Timothy by Sehleierm :d that of all three by 

inborn and Dc Wette, but Baur eauaed the ipuriouaneai 

oft ; -ties to i ixed by all independent investi- 

tom The at te mp ti of Qarnack and i «* a few 

lin- not 1 n convincing. The I re- 

buked m II Timothy and Til ■ advan 

clearly differentiated from tl 

byters. It then probable that these epistles were 

written in the reign of Hadrian. I Timothy apparently 

>n's famous book entitle.! " Antitheses" in 

irarning against "the antitheses of a gnosis falsely so 

called," Mid it is familiar with the monarchical episcopate, 
though the place of writing to be Some. 1 Timothy 

may on this account b led as written some twenty 

years later. 

Am M called " letters of the captivity," Ephesians, 

Colossians and Philemon form a group apparently coming 
from the same period. The genuineness of the "twin- 
epistles," Ephesians and Colossians, was questioned already 
by Evanson, that of Ephesians by Usteri, De Wette, 

ideiermacher and Schwegler, and that of Colossians espe- 

13 



194 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

cially by Mayerhoff, before Baur more fully exhibited the 

situation they reflect. Id Marcion's collection, Ephesians 

was addressed to the Laodiceans; many eminent scholars 

have held that it originally had no address at all. It is a 

homily on the unity of the Church. The author looks ba<-k 

upon "the holy apostles" as the foundation of the church. 

He is influenced by Gnostic ideas. I Peter, A<ts and I 

Clement were apparently known to him. The typ 

thought is earlier than that in the Johannine writing. The 

epistle seems to have b 1 by the 

ing of the Twelve. Ii :it and P<>h 

and written about 130 A. D. ( 

Gnostic affinities, the 

archies, the same Christology, tie :' the 

Church. The fab 

be of a somewhat different character, 1 

probably Ebionitish. Tl. the similarit 

some places to the language of tl 

some scholars have sougfal to explain by the theory of a 

genuine nucleus expanded by the auto 

Philemon is closely akin I 

Eph. i, 15-17 and Col. i, 4 iann 

has shown ; the question of slai nand in 

cisely these three epistles ; the 

in Colossians and Philemon. Steck baa rightly oi 
against its genuineness the improbability of a Phr\ . 
slave running away either to O 

sent back all the way to Phrygia, and :nade 

by the prisoner to pay Philemon for hifl loss. He regards 
Pliny's letters to Sahinian on behalf i D as hav- 

ing furnished the model. But H able that 

there existed a tradition to the effect that Paid had sent back 
a runaway slave. Colossians and Philemon are probal 
little later than Ephesians. 1 

1 The ablest defense of the genuineness of the Epistles to the 
Colossians and Philemon is that by J. B. Li Paul's 

Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. 1ST.". But it fails to do 
full justice to the arguments that may be urged against this assump- 
tion. 



TIT! 30UBGB8 195 

The epistle to the Philippians differs radically from the 
>up just considered. Baur and Bruno Bauer saw indica- 
tions of Gnostic ideas in ii, 6 If. ; but the passage may easily 
be an interpolation, and Ilolsten's interpretation renders 
the aracter doubtful. Then »n for iden- 

tifying the Clement of IV, 3 with the hypothetical author of 
one or both of the Roman bom t to Corinth. Ilol- 

sten's examination of this epistle is a perfect model of the 

irehenaive, fair and searching eritioi 
in which he excelled. He was led to reject its authenticity 
and yet at the same tin line that it was written not 

g after the death of Paul 1 The adyai md the 

ideal Of the D which he based his conclusion 

indeed m . but it eely more marked than 

that from Galatiana to B and is m the aame direction. 

Van .Main:: method of Comparing 

Philippians with four I quietly I 

nine, [f Holsten d imined the genuineness of th 

epistles, because even Baur had left them onqu< he 

St fault is in honor 

bound I lit ion. Hut if an examination 

utterly indifferent to th I ical tradi- 

: or the prevailii: iny time should find reasons 

for bclievimr th; »rms 

of them, are genuine, it would be both legitimate 
! accessary to use th of the 

element, the promi] the fundamental prob- 

lems of the earlier letters, even with a calmer <ii q of 

i. ami the marked similarity of ist then be de- 

That is Van Manen's own method It is cer- 
tainly not in Philippians itself h«' has found * »ns 

for assigning this epistle to so late a dal 5-150 A. D. 

Be has placed it there, becau pounds less apparent in 

this than any other ep: the conviction 

that the entire Pauline literature was written at that time. 
Philippians was probably written by Paul ca. 63 A. D. in 

1 JaJirlucher fur yrottstantiaehc Thcologle, 1S75 and 1876. 



196 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 



. The genuineness of I Thessalonians was apparently sus- 
pected already by the author of II Thessalonians. In mod- 
ern times Baur, Volkmar, Holsten, St Manen, and 
others have indicated many reasons for regarding it as 
spurious. The language used i presuppose a longer 
existence of the church in T aica than <»nly a few 
months; the fierce denunciation of the Jews is all the more 
strange if, contrary to Acta xvii, ted from 
their idols are addressed ; "the s rath that 
upon them to the end" can scarcely I 
than the destruction of Jerusalem ord" 
concerning his coming seem t<» hare been drawn f- 
apocalypse of the type that bed in I -n of 
Domitian. The early part oi thfl most 
probable date. As fur II '11: 

J. E. C. Schmidt, Mayerhoff, De v hool 

have only been strengthened by the most udies of 

the epistle by Hilgenfeld, BoHsmann, Pflcadevar, Wi 
and Hollmann. The advanced form of the Anti< • 
legend, the suspicion cast on I Th i the 

unconscious imitation of its language, and the r ef e f C D Cc to 
the greetings written in Paul's own hand as l mlhi of 
uineness, are decisive. On the <»thor hand, the absent 
any sign of Gnosticism should h. was 

probably written ea. 110 A. 1). 

The most burning question in new Testament isa 
the present time concerns the genuina 
ties, Galatians, I and TT Corinthians and R< 
regarded by Baur and the Tiibin_ k of 

Paul. The doubts in regard to Romans expressed by Evan- 
son 1 had attracted little attention. Sixty j uno 
Bauer 2 presented his reasons for bel: tt the entire 
Pauline literature was written in the second century. In 
1877 he particularly emphasized the relation of the 
thought to that of Seneca and th The : 

1 The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelist*, 1792. 
3 Kritik der Paulinischcn Brief e, U 

3 Christ us unci die Caesc 



THE SECONDARY SOUR* 197 

Allard Pieroon 1 was led to reject the Pauline epist! 
spurious. Of greater importance were the careful and 
methodical studies that A. 1). Loman 1 began to publish in 
1882. II is treat ment of the external evidence was especially 
convincing. Mar ted hie c inclusions as to 

the spuriousness of all the Pauline e and used ef- 

fectively the scanty Talmudic material to show that there 
was a long period of comparatively friendly relations be- 
d the believers in Jesui as the ooming Messiah and the 
other n of the Jewish community the final 

break came. J. C. Matthea, P. Van boon, 11. U. Mey- 
boom, J. A. Brni: of Ionian. In 1888 

Rudolf Steak* wi immentary on Galatiam from the 

new point of view. The ablest and motl indefatigable de- 
fender of this position tinee L88S Van Bianan. 1 

■ » 1 1 <_r 1 1 1 the 

km to t l 1.1. where 

w. B, Smitlr has mpioned the second c >rigin 

of the Pauline epistl lently, the origin of I 

epistles in the ieeond eentury and in Borne has bean main- 
tained by A. KalthofT in his attempt t<> understand Chris- 
tianity as- an ex pression Of a peculiar SOCial rather than in- 
dividual consciousness, the i d and apward i 
ment of I proletariat in 

The following arc the most important argumenti □ 
by these eeh 1 thinken in fay >r of their view. 

aal evidence <<t" | of any Paul- 

writinga are 

net letters in an. -m being 

nothing but a Literary dei maintain 

their unity, and most natural t<> Look npon them as com- 
pilations iA' already existing literary material. Almo 
1 l>c bcrijrtd' ->78. 

1SS3, 1886. 
*Blickc in die liiliyionsgtschui s3. 

4 /'< r Galaltibvu f n,i, h 

Brief 001 1 ; I>> brl> nn aan de Korinthicrs, 

1896. 

• Hibbert Journal, 1008, ami ils. where. 



193 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

Other epistles of this kind are pseudonymous. A number 
of epistles that claim to be by Paul have been generally 
recognized as spurious. There is no such difference between 
the four and the rest as to justify the opinion that more than 
half a century lies between them. The author of Acts does 
not seem to be acquainted with them. The character and 
teaching of Paul, according to these epistles, are very dif- 
ferent from the representation given in Acts, which does not 
suggest a radical who has broken completely with Jud. 
A teacher more in harmony with v let of 

Jesus is to be expected rather than a radical and a reformer 
so soon after the establishment The author 

of the epistles was manifestly influenced by Seneca, if not 
by Epictetus. The < I the proletariat 

speaks through him. It able that a str;: 

should address the church of Kome as he does, and one doeB 
not get any definite conception of the conditions of 
church or its membership. T -e of th< 

of the epistles twenty-fiv. lesus 

could be explained only 1 il miracle, as im- 

possible as the physical miracle by which tradition ex- 
plains it. 

It should be granted at once that it is not possible to prove 
by external evidence the < Pauline epistle in 

the first century. Those theol 
refer to the mention of a Pauline epist 
best possible external evidence. * ' A _■ 
in eighty years. The genuineness of the principal ep 
must therefore be decided solely on internal I. It 

should also be freely admitted that, in tli 
petent external testimony, only a high d.'Lrree of probability, 
but never absolute certainty, can be reached. It ought to be 
needless to remark that, in a matter thus necessarily 
to the subjective judgment of the in\ itism 

and impatience with dissenting views are wholly out of 
place. Are these epistles letters at all 1 The ] 
munications found among Egyptian p; rj differ- 

ent. On the other hand, numerous examples of 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 199 



clearly intended for a larger circle of readers or hearers 
have come to us. Many of these unquestionably were 
lepigrapha written in the name of distinguished men 
with the whole epistolary apparatus of personal references 
and greetings. What we would call an essay, a treatise, a 
tract very often took this form. But this furnish' 
ground for doubting that mefa I lion of important 

t by a religious propagandist 

in the form of an epistle to a cull in whoa* 

• •ply interested. The epistli 

like • Why should UOl rail's? 

It is of i rue that l Lute into 

epistles cann«>t be mail The older they are, th- 

likely are they to have oomc i us in their ori 

form. The longer tk i thai el 

eal authority, ti must 

have luffered through earelesa , m aeeus- 

tomed to a oautioui and rev eren t handling of b 

re through which they passed, tin- more prob- 
ability is there of eh It 
would be unreasonab] 

from paganism and Gn I th ac- 

curacy in the transmission of liming in any 

way to b ifl the Pi 

just l< arning tie in the 

Van Manrn has conclusively 
ihown that Maivi.ui possessed an earlier form of <!alatians 

than the somewhat expanded Catholic epistle. Hut hie eopy 
had no doubt already been interpolated 

ing p 1 [agar and Sinai. The 

whole allegorical interpretation is likely to be an interpola- 
tion. It can r than the fall of Jerusalem 
and the carrying away of captives in 70 A. D. Baur 1 
prized that Romans xv and xvi are a later addition. 
Straatman 2 is probably right in regarding xii-xiv as such. 

1 Semler and Eichhorn had already espoused the view that these 
chapters, though by Paul, did not originally belong to this epistle. 
■ Theologisch Txjdschrxft, 1868, p. 38 ff. 



200 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

The account of the appearances of Jesus after his resurrec- 
tion in I Corinthians xv, 5-11 seems to be a later insertion. 
Only a very searching literary criticism will be dis- 

cover what the original form of II Corinthians 
Gradual corruption and enlargement belong to the lit- 
vicissitudes of all ancient manuscripts. But Van Manen's 
theory that these epistles are compilations does not seem 
probable. In the writing of history I the common 

method. But why should the writer of an epistle be 
posed to draw upon a new literary sour- 
changes his subject? And where would hi^ ma- 
terial come from? In what form would these little frag- 
ments have existed before? 

There is much force in the consideration that none of the 
epistles ascribed to Peter and John. Janes and Jade, < 
ent and Barnabas, [gnatiiu and Bermi 
genuine, and that some Pauline iiist be rejec 

But there are genuine epistles as well as fictitious ones that 
have come down from pagan antiquity. There would be a 
special reason for writing name of the im- 

mediate disciples of Jesus and his brothers, if the:* 
epistles of Paul, and the writing of moi D his 

name would be natural, if a few had at ..joyed a long 

prestige. 

Whether the difference between Gslatisj I nhesians 

is such as to demand sixty 
not easily answered. But it must 1 

student that the world of thought into which the former 
ushers us is altogether different from that of the latter. 
Has the Law eternal validity? Must I Gentile believer in 
Jesus as the Messiah be circume Ifnal he keep the 

distinction between clean and unclean food? Must he ob- 
serve the sabbath? Must he abstain from meat otTer. 
idols? These are the questions that occupy the min 
the Galatians. They were not of a speculative, but of an 
entirely practical nature. They must have arisen as soon 
as followers of Jesus began to proclaim his gospel in the 
Hellenistic world. It was not among the A 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 201 



Christians of Palestine that these questions would be likely 
to cause a disturbance, but among the Greek-speaking Jews, 
who would naturally be divided among themselves. How 
long the conflict must have raged over these fundamental 
issues before they were driven into the background, we have 
no means of determining. But the time indicated does not 
seem excessive. "When Ephesians was written, the Church 
has been com] from the mother-body, and the 

Gnosti occupy the minds of the Christians. 

The preparation for this ma;. □ [fl A.CtS, when- the 

Older apoatlei have bt >USly assimilated to Paul, 

and l'anl brought into more harmonious relations to them. 
It is impossible to Bay whether the author knew any letter of 
Paul. A letter sum in Galatia, two or thn 

Greece, and one in Italy, even a numt lend 

rid there in these churches, may \.i y well have escaped 

his at And if he had read any of them, it is likely 

to have been uncritically and in the light of the traditions, 
conditions, and imprei 

It is right to maintain that I I must be pit 

i it ion, where they belong in the develop- 
ment of religious thought 1 toclamal iom against the theory 
of natural evolution will have If tie- larger Paul- 

plained naturally as a prodd 

SUtury conditions, and as the work of Paul only by a 

physical or psychicsJ miracle, there should be no more 

rd to them than in the case of the Fourth Gos- 
i atholie E But En bracing the natural 

lopment it is necessary to observe the different tend- 
encies of lit*.' and thought within Judaism, and their un- 
avoidable continuance among the Jews who became Chris- 
The very fast that they used the (J reek language, 

were in constant contact with Greeks, and lived at a distance 
from temple and cult, exposed Hellenistic Jews to influences 
of thought not felt at all, or at least not so directly, by Ara- 
maic-speakintr Jews living in Palestine. So also the very 
fact that they spoke Aramaic, heard the Hebrew Scriptures 
read, lived in the midst of their native institutions, and were 



202 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 



bound up with the national life, tended to make the Pales- 
tinian Christians conservative. An outbreak of radicalism 
is as natural in a Hellenistic Je keen resentment 

against it on the part of Aramaic-speaking 
even if they had learned to look for the return of Jesus as 
the Messiah. It is not Legitimate to ask whether the th<> 
of Galatians can have developed in twenty-fife years from 
the faith of the Galilean diseip] itelj 

after his death. The answer to this question must of course 
be in the negative. Behind the ll I lies 

the world of thought in which an educated Ib-ll.-nistie Jew 
lived, the world of Philo and i The Paul of these 

epistles is no more a miracle than is Philo. 
cannot be explained by the l>o<»k of Jubilees 
Aboth. A correct instinct led an earl;, an to forge a 

correspondence between Pan! and l Bruno Bauer 

was also right when he divined a relation ] 
thought of Seneca and Paulinism. P r, 1 with true 

insight, calls attention to this philoeo] ;s atmos- 

phere which must have existed in ] 

Paul, in the first half of the first century. Ti. tend- 

encies of thought and life are illu- 
sion in a Philo, B I Paul. n vain to ask 
whether a convert can become i 

he has embraced. That d< :itirely upon 1 acter 

and the stage of development of the faith. If h 
sion meant a long stride from his former position, the 
impetus that brought him there may irrv him fur- 

ther. If the cause with which he identified himself was 
itself in its infancy, and seemed to him to imply a 1. 
principle than its defenders recognised, the' hing 

improbable in such a radicalism at the outset. In the case 
of Paul, however, it was not until after ; reflection 

that he seems to have appeared with his uew inter] 
of the Gospel, based on the onivera so natural 

to a Hellenistic Jew. The more earnestly it is at temp' 
understand the actual evolution oi Paulinism. the 
1 In Urchristcntum 2 , 1902. 



THE SECONDARY SOURCES 203 

perative it becomes to postulate a marked personality, in 
whom the tend E Hellenistic Judaism and Palestinian 

Pharisaism met, and took a new direction under the influ- 
ence of a strong and peculiar Messianic conviction. His 

n followed, it would seem, by a 
long OOnfli .just thfl clearly seen in Cala- 

Finally, t ; OOnld only be retired by the 

gradual separation of the christian church from its original 
ethnic connection Such tality is ad by the 

earlier aonrei inch a conflict this historic work 

cannot d ; raeh ■ ihifting of the intereei and the new- 

point the author clearly manifests, in new of such Cac 

are known to oa, it remains must probable that tl. 

to the < falatiana, the ( !orinthiam and the Romans were writ' 

ten by Paul I 1 >. 

What evidential value, so far ai the life and teaehin 

are concerned, turn the thai may thus be 

aaeribed to Panlf In riew oi tin table donbta as to 

the integrity of the present text, the; I with 

great caution, and details cann<>; led. It may he 

r, that in tie- reign were 

( Ihristian eult-communiti • and 

Rome, In which the founder of tic faith, Jesus, was be! 

to have been ■ martyr, erucitied in Judaea, to ; 

:in from the dead on the third day according to the 

Bebrew Scriptures, and I is the 

ning the nature of his Ifesaiahahip, and 

(feet of his death and re surr e ct ion upon the Jewish law, 

were in tin wide ditYen : opinion. 

Paul himself maintained that r e his 

earthly life ai tl al and archetypal man, that his 

death 1 the insufficieney and temporary character of 

the law, and breed the believer from all obligation to its 

carnal commandments, and that his resurrection proved him 
now to be the Son of Cod. the Lord of a new dispensation 
destined to end only with the subjection of all things to God, 
and the Spirit of Life. wh<-s t - inwardly operating law brings 
about the moral perfection which the Bible as an external 



204 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

authority could not accomplish. While these views were 

shared by many Hellenistic Jews who had embraced the new 

faith, and their general tendency was B| 

pagans, however strange some of the Pauline concep* 

and methods of reasoning may hfl it is 

evident from the epistles that the tnother-chnreh 

salem looked upon Jesus as a prophet, mighty in \ 

deed, who had been put to death by the ni: had been 

raised by God and preserved id heaven, until the day 

he should appear as the Messiah to ih the kingdom of 

Israel, and upon his death and : IS havii: 

effect on the validity of the law and tl 

joined by it, such as eircun s, and 

Aside from the crucifixion, i, :i the li: 

Jesus can be gleaned from tins.' epistles, nor do tie 

a single savin- of Jesus. With the uncertainty that rests 

on the historical character of the I an unprii 

the statements in Acts from which th 

sionary journeys has been 

of the fourteen-year period men! us. it is 

quite impossible to determine how n 

appearance before FestUfl Pan! had the vision * 

convinced him that Jesus had 1>- 

and, in spite of his crucifixion, was the M. a 

have been many years, howei -lesus. 

There is no intimation that the disci: 

already reached the conviction thai Jesus had aised 

from the dead on the third da j ling to t 1 

but rather probable thai statementi 

the psychological preparation o{ Paul for h> 

perience. If, therefore, little light is thrown by the Pauline 

epistles upon the life and teaching 

theless of great value as testimoni :h he 

did not know Jesus personally, knew his tramed pies, 

and cannot have been mistaken in to his h> 

istence in his own life-time and a 

version, and also in reference to the early ; f the 

two ideas that Jesus had been raised from the dead and that 

he would return to earth on the clouds 



CHAPTER IX 



Till: GOSPELS 



Many gospels that were read and cherished I 
tians in the second centurj i maintain their hold 

upon the developing Catholic Church and to find ■ place 
in its canon of Scriptures, The mod important of these 
seem to have been tl ling to the I 

Elites, tl 

yptians, and tl I according to 1 ' 

The Gospel according to the Bebrewi appears to have 

id both in its original Hebrew or Aramaic form ami 
in a Greek translation. Jerome claims to l. d and 

lated it. I » u t his translation is lost, and the quota- 
tions do not permit n m ■ true estimate of its char- 

That it was not identical with our Gospel ac< 
ing to Matthew is dear both from the quotations and 

. ict that be felt it i to undertake ■ transla- 

tion. Whether it was written h m or in Aramaic 

is uncertain. In the former case it would probably be 

ilation. If Jerome had before him an 
maic original, it is more likely to have been ■ descendant 

d early Palestinian gospel* This is, on the whole, 

probable. But it is, of course, unsafe to infer from 
quotations of peculil li.it this gospel may 

been in its original form. During three centuri 
it had naturally gathered many interpolations and 

still Lea on a 

Greek version even in the time of Clement of Alexandria. 

There is nothing to prevent the assumption that the Gos- 
pel according to the Hebrews in its earliest form was a 
copy of the first written Am maic gospel. But at present 

205 



206 THE PKOPHET OF NAZARETH 

this is not capable of proof. The altogether trustworthy 
narrative in John vii, 53-viii, 11, seems to have been taken 
from this gospel ; but whether the Fourth Evangelist him- 
self introduced it, or anywhere else used this source, is 
doubtful. It is equally uncertain whether the gospel in 
any form was known to Justin Martyr. The Gospel ac- 
cording to the Ebionites seems to be a later production. 
The relations of this work in its earlier forms to the Gos- 
pel according to the Hebrews cannot be determined. It 
is perhaps hazardous to draw any conclusions I 
general character of the Gospel according to the E( 
tians from the one extant quotation. But it seems sa 
infer that it was originally written in Greek and that it 
reflected Hellenistic tendencies. Ilarnaek is probably 
right in ascribing to the same milieu, if not to th 
itself, the collections of "Says y found 

in Egypt. There is not the dig ason to suppose 

that any of these is genuine. 

Of more immediate importance is the Gospel a- 
to Peter. A fragment of this work was disoorered at 
Akhmim, Egypt, in 1892. Bn1 it was probably wr 
in Syria. Serapion of Antioch rs to 

it; and Harnaek 1 has shown that Justin Martyr used it. 
The author was apparently familiar with th 
but used them with great freedom and drew upon 
stream of oral tradition. lie was not acquaint. 1 with 
the Fourth Gospel. There is no indication of Gn 
and its docetic tendency is not sufficiently mar 
it a heretical gospel. Besides, a distinction 
Catholic and sectarian gospels did not riod 

before Justin Martyr. Some relatively ancient 
have been preserved in this gospel. Thni s cruci- 

fied by the Jews, and his disciples return to Galilee bei 
they have seen their risen Master. His first appear;, 
to them in Galilee must therefore have been told in 

1 Bruchstucke des Evangtliums und i . upsc de* Pctrus* 

1893, p. 37 ff. 



THE GOSPELS 207 



lost conclusion to the gospel. 1 On the other hand, there 
are also some very late features. The gospel seems to 
have been written between 130 and 150 A. D. The Gospel 
according to Xicodemus, the Protcvangilium Jacobi, and 
other gospels of the infancy, are late works possessing no 
historical value. 

From the time of Irenaeus the four Gospels according 
to Matthew, Mark, Lake and John have enjoyed greater 

authority than all others. A distinction must he made, 

tween the Fourth <;-»sp.-i and the Synoptics. 
In regard to the former the:- of opinion 

already in the Early church. A party called the AloL r i 

(ted it as BpnriotU at the vry time when the first 

external evidence of its is found. These Alogl 

n«»t heretical innorators, but conservatives who 

1 up<»n the application of the Logos-eonception to 

\v and dai I rine. Whether they 

had any sympathi/« rs in the Middle I not known. 

The German and rmen did nut qu ither 

the anthorahip or the historical accuracy of the Fourth 

l. lint itimony of Ginliano of Milan, 

given before the Inquisition and red in its official 

records.'- to the effect that the 1: in Italy did not 

of apostolic origin and authority. If the 
liberty of conscience Cor which tip hi had 

accorded to them, we might have learned th< s for 

their faith, and the world would not have had to wait a 
quarter of a millennium for a truer estimate of this gos- 
pel. A oentury of labor has at last established it. 
Through the insight and h of such men as Evan- 

son, Horst, Bretschneider, Bruno Bauer, Strauss, Schwe- 
pler, Banr, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Beholten, Albert Re- 

1 That the author knows no appearance of Jesus on Easter Sunday 
is important, showing, as Harnaek remarks (/. c, p. 62), that "on 
this important point we have in the Gospel acording to Peter a tradi- 
tion that is oldor than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.'' 

'See especially JRcvista Christiana, 1885, and Comba, I nostri pro- 
tcstanti, 1S97, II, 488 ff. 



208 THE PKOPHET OF NAZARETH 

ville, Thoma, Pfleiderer, AVeizsacker, Cassels, Sihmiedel, 
Van Manen, Jean Reville, Spitta, Harnack, Bacon, Pries, 
Kreyenbiihl and Grill, not to mention others, the charac- 
ter of the gospel has become increasingly manifest. 
There are many problems left, but they are of wholly sub- 
ordinate value. Whether the external or the internal 
evidence is considered, the results are the It is not 

the work of the apostle John ; it if 

century; it cannot be used in ntly as , from 

which to derive knowledg ruing the li: 

ing of Jesus; it is not a historical but a dida 
it belongs to the period of the conflict between Oil 
and Catholicism; it refle hical sp 

of Philo and the Alexandria] 1 and I 

Gnosticism they helped to foster, though with such modi- 
fications as made it a useful instrument for the dev> 
ment of the Catholic type of thought 

The first reference to this gospel a d is 

found in an epistle written by Theophih 
180 A. D. ; and the first distil men1 that its author 

was the apostle John is met in a work of Ir 
bishop of Lyons, written about the same time. The Mura- 
torian Canon at the end of tl :itury ascrib 

to the apostle. Celsus may have consulted the uospel in 
178 A. D. Tatian knew it. This is certa: 
question of the Diatcssaron. The Arabic translation of a 
Diatessaron published by I has on insufficient 

grounds been supposed to be Tat aitic 

Syriac, which contains the Fourth been 

made toward the end of the second century. ents 

have been preserved of a commentary on this gospel by 
Heraeleon, a disciple of Valentinus. Two other 
of Valentinus, Ptolemy and Theodotus, were familiar with 
it. There is no evidence that Valentinus himself knew it : 
and the testimony of Hippolytus in his Philosophoumcna 
(ca. 225 A. D.) to its use by Basilides is not I -thy. 

Marcion, who came to Rome about 144 A. IV. was 
acquainted with it. Justin Martyr, who wrote his ApoUh 



THE GOSPELS 209 



gies and Dialogue with Trypho between 152 and 160 A. D.. 
does not mention it. Some of his statements, and espe- 
cially his use of the Logos-speculation, have Led to the 
belief that he may have read it, though he did not recog- 
nize its authority. It is more natural to suppose that lie 
was influenced by the general trend of thought that found 
expression in the gospeL Neither [renaeus nor Eusebius 
has preserred any statement from the Lost work of Papias 
indicating thai he knew this gospeL A Bodleyan manu- 
script quoting "John the Evangelist " seems to be ascribed 
to Papias. But this Papias i My the I rapher 

of the twelfth century. A manuscript in the Vatican con- 
tains an argumi ntum in which Papias is said to have 

acted as John's amanuensii and yet to have hen a con- 
temporary of Ifareion, Though po<xii>iy older than Jer- 
ome, this anjurm nlum has no h value. 1\>1 

does not mention tliis gospeL No quotations from it are 
found in the cpisths ascribed t«» Ignatius of Antioeh, and 
probably written cm. L40 a !>.. though similar ; 

and there expressed. The (Jnostic A< ts of JdklH 

ascribed to Leueius Charinus speak of John as "the be- 
loved disciple." This work eridently com i the 

same milieu | 1 ; hut it is impossible to prove 

dependence on either I evidence shows 

with men i, what was '1 already a 

eentu] that th 1 among the 

GnOSl into use amoiiLT Catholic Chris- 

tians. 1 

Since the end of the second century a tradition ex- 
isted in the Church that the apostle John lived to a high 
;e in BpheSUS and died there peaceably in the time of 
Trajan. It is significant that Papias evidently did not 
know the apostle John either as the writer of a gospel or 
as the head of the ehurch in BpheSUS. If he had, Irenaeus 

and Eusebius would have been only too glad to record 
it. Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hennas, the Deutero- 

' Befbrt TCretsohneMor 's Trohahxlxa, 1S20. TTorst in Henke's Maga- 
zin, 1S03, presented this fact with great clearness, 
14 



210 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

Pauline epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, Marcion, 
and the Ignatian epistles are silent concerning any so- 
journ of the apostle John in Asia Minor. There was in 
fact a somewhat widespread tradition that the apostle 
John did not die naturally at Ephesus in the reign of Tra- 
jan, but was put to death by the Jews in !em long 
before that time. George the Sinner in the ninth century 
quotes a passage from the second book of Papias's work 
affirming that the apostle John was pal to death by 
Jews. Ileracleon does not mention John Bin apos- 
tles who had died a natural death. The ai. . riac 
calendar commemorates on ' as mar 
"John and James ti and the 
Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothico-Gallic and Carthaginian cal- 
endars similarly mention the two martyred t 
Matth. xx, 23, and Mark | John was to be, 
or had been, baptized with t: blood as 
James. Whether this tradition r n a solid 
tion of fact, and in that ease tin- 
the same tim i brother or later, if not 
termine. It appears at any rat.- to be older than that of 
his long sojourn in :d natural death tl 
Papias carefully distinguish' | 

and John, the presbyter, the oontempon -tion. 

This presbyter John is also m atea, 

bishop of Ephesus, ea. 190 A. I)., in eonn 
carp, Melito and their eontemporar em- 

bellishments already cluster about his is a 

priest and wears the pontifical diadem. 1 lent that 

this John, the presbyter, has I 1 with John, the 

apostle. Such a merging of the \ • into th 

probably occurs in John xxi. 20 ff. John, tin 
already dead: hence the mv 

taken idea that "the beloved disciple" had actually 
promised to live until the return of Christ, 
of his life far into the second century still lingers and I 

1 On those calendars see F. P. B- n tl^ 

Apostle, in The American Journal of Thcolocy. July, 1901. 



THE GOSPELS 211 



plements in some circles the defective information as to the 
later fortunes and end of the life of John, the apostle. The 
champions of Peter's primacy, who by their addition to the 
gospel made it acceptable to the Catholic Church, were 
convinced that it came from the hand of "the beloved dis- 
ciple/ 1 unable to distinguish between the two .Johns, but 
anxious t<> prevent any rival claims by the Johannine 
school based on the widely reported saying of Jesus and 
tie- developing Legend of John's continued '*e on 

earth or translation. It is impossible to prove that this 
byter John who is known through Papias only 

I oral tradition had anything to do with the 

eomposition of the Ponrtl I lentical with "the 

preebj i tie- epistles whose nam-' is not (riven, or is 

the author of the Apocalypse, <>r any pari of it. The 
attempts to fasten upon him tie- authorship of the L r 
.■.holly oneonvincing, in 4 tie- u emi- 

ie-nt scholars that may be cited in favor of th' store. 

I in tie- tad that tle-y have 
1 in tie- growth of tradi- 
tion. Tie- ancient Alogi and some modern scholars, nota- 
bly l leribed the who I, or s considerable 

part Of rinthus. This opinion has no more in- 

trinsic probability, but shows s correct appreciation of its 

lie character. The same judgment applies to the 

of Kreyenbuhl who regards nfenander of Eappare- 
taea, the alleged disciple of Simon Magus and probable 
teacher of Valentinus and Basilides, as the author. A 

d criticism must be I with a non liquet on the 

question of authorship. 

When the late, vacillating and unreliable tradition of 
tolie authorship . and the Fourth (Jospel 

is compared, without prejudice, with the Synoptics, it be- 
comes possible to understand its character. It is in no 
sense a historical account of what Jesus said and did. It 

nitieant that even conservative seholars find it im- 

ble to maintain that the speeches it puts upon the 
lips of Jcsun were actually uttered by him, at least in 



212 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

the form given to them, or to deny that there are irrec- 
oncilable conflicts between the historic framework and 
the Synoptic representation. Sanday freely admits "in 
this collection of sayings an element— possibly a some- 
what considerable element— that represents not so much 
what was actually spoken as enlargement and comment 
embodying the experience and r 
church." 1 Any serious attempt, fa 
such enlargements and comments from th 
ine nucleus only tends to reveal the substantial uui: 
the whole structure. Some o doubt 

were. But the theories of Schweixer, of Hurnack and 
Bousset, of Delff and Fries, by which it 
to vindicate a genuine kernel reported by the i 
John during the visits oi l.m, ha\ 

to commend themselves chiefly 

ever small the remnant, it still exhil • Johan- 

nine characteristics, the sam.' peculiar philosophic 
the same contrast to the langu o the 

Synoptics, the same fundamental 

other gospels in the conception of 1 some 

respects, the source-1 1 ndt 

is more plausible. There is no r ii»t thai 

author may have had before him other sources thai 
Synoptics. It is not incona that this work was 

preceded by another of a similar chara<- 
the same Hellenistic milieu, very much ; 
were preceded by a similar Midrash on tl 
Kings. But there is no indication of this; and tl 
of the discovery of any additional sour 
evangelist is at once greatly reduced by ol the 

manner in which he deals with the sources knov 
that he obviously had at his disposal 

The freedom with which the author J is 

explained in part by his philosophy, in pari 
ical method, and in part by his Christ: The 

1 Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. IV. 



THE GOSPELS 213 



Prologue clearly indicates his philosophical position. He 
was a disciple of Philo and a Christian Gnostic. Whether 
he had ever read the works of Philo or not, it was from 
them that he derived his great organizing idea. The more 
intimately one becomes acquainted with Philo 's thought, 
the more inevitable becomes the conclusion that its salient 
feature! must have been known to the Fourth Evangelist, 
and the more probable i1 . from the repetition of 

numerous pi that the later writer was actually 

familiar with the works of hi >r. It is equally 

clear that he was a G signed to 

present .1 an incarnate god; i manifestation of the 

divine Logos in a human personality; a dispenser to the 
sons of Light of that hidden knowledge, or which 

them sterna] life; an emanation from the Supreme 
God going forth into the darkness of the Cosmos and 
returning to him, that another emanation, the Para- 
clete, may take his place. Of his t wo cardinal ideas "the 

! ." Philo 

supplied the former. The idea of ■ divine incarnation, 
still foreign to Philo 1 latum, ultimately came from 

India Through Persia the belief in avatat livine 

incarnati' with the hope «•!" redemption 

through esoteric knowledge and the conception of an ab- 
solute ethical dualism, cam.- to pt and Asia 
Minor. Gnosticism — Pagan, Jewish and Christian — was 

result. 1 Tl l philosophy of emanation 

through the Fourth Qospel became regnant in the Chris- 
tian Church. The author - >ve to com- 
mend to the Church the Gnosticism in which he beli 

■illy removing c turea of which he could not 

approve by emphasising, against docetic tendencies, the 
reality of the incarnation, the true humanity assumed by 
the Logos. 

The allegorical method permitted him to read his own 
philosophy into the records he had before him, to ignore 

1 See Excursus A. 



214 THE PROPHET OF NAZAKETH 



as of little importance, or to lose sight of, literal sense 
and historic fact, to seek for the spirit which "bkw 
where it listeth," and to symbolize its message in new and 
suggestive forms. Thus the difficulties in the Old T 
ment so keenly felt by Gnostics yielded to a new 
of Gnostic thought. The creation of the world is on 
stood as an eternal procession of things through the 
Logos. The prophetic inspiration in I not thought 

of as the action of a drily dealing in su<-h a manner only 
with the Jews, but as the illumination ofieril I im- 

partially to every soul that conns into the world 
supreme sacrifice, the paschal lamb, is 1 
true Lamb of God. The of the PiH 

Tabernacles, the Dedication an- but symbols wl. 
meaning becomes apparent, when the Logos ofl 
flesh for food, his spirit for drink, his body for a temple. 
The Sabbath itself is a sign, not 
marvelous and everlasting work i nd of the Logos. 

It is not strange that an author who thus treats 
great ideas and institutions <.i' the Old Testament 
reveal the same spirit in dealing with the earlier l'o^; 
They were seen in the Light of the Word 
There is no story of a conception by tin- Holy nd a 

virgin birth in this gospel. The 

nity to eternity. When he appears in t: !ias a 

father as well as a mother. Hut these earthly I 
have no significance; the spiritual relations alone are im- 
portant. Jesus is not baptized by John. He is pub 
recognized as the Messiah by th 

his work independently of his predecessor before tli 
rest of the latter. There is no Messianic temptation. The 
Logos cannot be tempted with evil. There h 
ment of his Messiahship, no injunction upon, 
not to proclaim him as the Messiah. Th 
preach the coming of the kingdom of heaven; he j 
incessantly to himself. There is no transfiguration; the 
cross is his mount of transfiguration. There is ] 
with devils for the healing of men. and no n of 



THE GOSPELS 215 



him as the Messiah by demons or demoniacs. The Logos 
cannot come into contact with this world of unclean 
spirits. The miracles of this gospel seem to be intended 
as allegories. They are i to such a point as to 

raise at least the question whether they were at all meant 
to be taken as narratives of actual occurrences. In place 
of the formalism of tl . with their purificatory rites, 

wine. The bread 
he multiplies is the heavenly manna, himself. 11 
the sight of men that they may iee the invisible 
the Son of God. X oal meal 11 ifl him- 

self the patflhal lamb. Hence his death ifl placed, con- 
trary to the Syr ; i of Nisan when 
the paschal lamb was slain. - no institution of the 
Lord's Supper. The author knows the each rmu- 
las ; but he maintains that "the flesh profiteth nothing"; 

it is the teaching of JesOf that is spirit and life. In the 

place of the • t he puts the Coot-washing. Th 

no agony in ( I iane. There is no c 

s on the cr<>ss. Tl. ilni anraffled 

ity to his g] >n. There is d don after 

forty days. The thee upon the disciples and 

to them It* tome of tli«' mat 
u the conversationfl with Nieodemufl and the Samari- 

tan woman, the message of Philip and the placing of John 

and Mary beneath the m rived from other 

is unknown to as, it has evidently gone through 

the same transformation. The author 'fl allegorising tend- 
ency is particularly manifest in the - mari- 
tan woman who clearly I tfl the Samaritan people 
that has abandoned its five Assyrian gods, but not at- 
tained to the worship of God in spirit and in 
truth. 

But neither the influence of Alexandrian and Oriental 
speculation nor the use of allegorical methods of inter- 
pretation can fully account for the nature of this most 
remarkable literary production left to us by Christian 
antiquity. The Logos here presented is no mere philo- 



216 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

sophical abstraction. By being welded to the historical 
personality of Jesus of Nazareth, it has become instinct 
with life, informed with his spirit, a divinely human ob- 
ject of faith, love and devotion. The Christ of Paul is a 
celestial being, the ideal, archetypal man, the Son of God 
by virtue of his resurrection. To have known him accord- 
ing to the flesh, to be acquainted with hi and 
deeds, is of no importance, to live in spiritual communion 
with the risen and glorified Lord is all-important. The 
Logos of the Fourth Gospel walks on earth, tabernacl 
the flesh, sends forth unceasingly the rays of his divine 
glory through the veil of his assumed humanity, rod it 
is here, in his incarnate at the b • finds 
him and lives with him. This Chi rienoe is 
genuine and sincere: it fills the author's soul with life 
and light and joy. Its power d< □ the 
objective reality of such a persona] I ipon the 
historical character of such an incarnation of a god [tl 
source is not the Phi Ionian Logos, but the human lii 
Jesus. With all its grandeur, this incarnate 
so great as the humble teacher of Nazareth. Out of his 
fulness the Evangelist received, race for 
To have come under the influence of his spirit 
experience. To this experience is due what nent 
in the thought of the Fourth Gospel. Time, like an ever 
rolling stream, sweeps away what is perishable in the 
grandest structures of human speculation. Bvl 
serves and enhances the value of the things that hav 
them abiding substance. While the Johannine 000 
tion of the Christ fades away before the glory of 
toric reality shining through the Synoptic representation, 
the spiritual freedom and insight of the great e\ 
become all the more apparent. These were hid- 
den as long as men sought in his gospel what it could not 
give, more accurate information concerning the words 
and deeds of Jesus; they stand out in startling relief when 
seen against the background of the crystallizing b 
and fixed institutions of the Church in the fourth decade 



TIIE GOSPELS 217 



of the second century. Had the Church possessed a tithe 
of the spirit of him who substituted a foot-washing for the 
eaeharist, suppressed the baptism of Jesus, refused to be 
bound by gospel-books and ecclesiastical tradition, found 

nd redemption in the essence and trend of J< 
teaching and not in forensic fictions, understood that 
"the letter killeth" and let his present ideal speak in 
I to him true, stagnation of doctrinal 
development, ■ rigid fixity of institutional character, and 
a deadening imposition of external authority on the con- 
»f men would hi nble. The inter- 

nal evidence apparentlj indicates that the goapel was 

written bet* i and 140 A. I>., while the reprisals 

taken by the dews for their mfferingi in eonaognenee of 

the insurr.-etion under Simon bar Kbaeba i u in 

mind, and it is possible that John v. 85, e,.ntains an allu- 
sion to this Messiah. 

-pels a - to Matthew, Mark and Luke 

•ailed 1 bach "Synoptics," and the term has 

been kepi tor the take o though it is ap- 

parent, on el< tnination, that they are by no meam 

written from the same point of view. The d: | are 

as important i pari of the Synoptic problem as ti e simi- 
larities. The reader who turns from ■ perusal of Mat- 
thew to Mark, and then to Lake, findfl himself going over 
familiar ground. In Mark there is nothing that 

lutely new; in Luke tin ■•■ etions that contain new 

materiaL But on the whole the story appears to be the 

same. V.-t the thoughtful and obser ident is Dua- 

lled to find that rery rarely the same saying has been 
given in the same form <>r pal in the same connection, and 
that the diffea d the historic setting ten very 

marked. He is constantly forced to ask himself, Did 
actually otter the words that Matthew places on 
his lips, or those ascribed to him by Mark, or the quite 
different ones reported by Luke? Which is the more 
original, and to what accidents or conscious motives are 
the changes due? Has the silence of one or two of the 



218 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

evangelists in regard to an important utterance any sig- 
nificance? If the authors transformed old sayings, is it 
also likely that they created new ones? To what extent 
are changes due to errors and additions in transmission 
rather than to the evangelists them^ Can they be 

explained as occasioned by differences in rendering a com- 
mon Aramaic original, or were there different Aramaic 
sources? Was any of our present Greek i directly 

translated from an Aramaic gospel, or does the process 
of individual rendering of Aramaic sayings into Greek 
lie further behind the process of gospel-writing in On 
Has any Greek gospel come down to us in its original 
form, or have they all suffered to some extent by addition 
and excision, alteration and transposition? ]» 
gospel show literary dependence on any other? Have we 
any knowledge of literary sources used by th»> evangel 
What value should be ascribed to oral tradition? What 
is likely to be the date of the present - of these 

gospels in their most original form, and of tl 
And what degree of credibility can be assigned to these 
records of the life and teaching of Jesi 

Thus one question leads to another. In attempting 
answer them we naturally turn first to the e&rKet 
tamable tradition of the church. The only realty impor- 
tant testimony as to Matthew and Mark is found in some 
fragments of a lost work of Papias, bishop of Ilierapolis, 
in Phrygia, toward the middle of the second e- -ntury. 
These fragments have been preserved by Eusebius. 1 
Papias declares that the apostle Matthew wrote certain 
Logia, or sayings of Jesus, in "the Hebrew diah 
that each man interpreted them in his own way. 
that it was his constant endeavor to secure information 
concerning the words of Jesus from the disciples of the 
presbyters who had themselves been the disciples of the 
apostles. By the "Hebrew dialect" he no doubt means 
the Aramaic spoken by the Hebrews of the period. If he 
had himself been able to consult the Aramaic work. 
1 Eist Eccl, ni, 39, 1 ff. 



THE GOSPELS 219 



would unquestionably have mentioned so important a 
fact. His assertion that each man interpreted the Ara- 
maic in his own way shows that he was familiar with vari- 
ous Greek gospels claiming to be translations of the apos- 
tolic work. He ascribed none of these to the apostle Mat- 
thew. Not having in his possession any gospel on which 
he felt he could implicitly rely, he Leaned all the more 
heavily on oral tradition. He was glad to take such tra- 
dition f rom the third generation, lit 1 was acquainted 
with the Gospel according to Mark, and regarded this as 
haivng been written by a companion of Peter, under his 
influence. Concerning Luke and John he knew nothing. 

It is evident that a tradition that appean for the first 
time a hundred yean after the death of Jesus, and lias 
been preserved t<> us only in late azeerptl <>i' a work writ- 
ten about that tune, does not carry as mu«li weight as one 
might wish, it may ahnply record the prevalent view in 
Asia Minor at the time of Antoninus Pius (138-161 
A. D.). This view may have some foundation in fact ; but 
we are unable to prove its accuracy. Aside from the 
doubtful identity of the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
known to Jerome and others, it is altogether probable 
that there existed in Syria an Aramaic goapeL The inves- 
tigations in regard to the term "son of man" have con- 
vinced the present writer that the so-called Jerusalem 
nxarij, whatever the date of its present form, has 
been influenced by an earlier Aramaic gospel. 1 The Ara- 
maic speaking Christians of Syria must have had a gospel 
of their own. Their peculiar doctrinal position demanded 
it. As their peculiarities affected the life and ministry 
of Jesus quite as much as his teaching, it is a priori prob- 
able that this gospel was not merely a collection of say- 
ings. There is also every reason to believe that it was 
ascribed to Matthew. Papias had evidently heard that 
such a gospel existed. His word can of course not prove 
that it actually was written by the apostle. The question 
has been much discussed whether the term he uses shows 
1 Cf. Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. IV, 1903, cols. 4714, 4727. 



220 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH 

that it was only a collection of detached utterances or a 
gospel giving a narrative of the life of Jesus as well. The 
analogy of Old Testament usage renders the latter alter- 
native more probable. We have no collection of pro- 
phetic oracles in the Old Testament that is not supj lied 
with editorial superscriptions, and accounts of events con- 
nected with the lives of the prophets are frequently inter- 
spersed in the books of the second canon. It is also sig- 
nificant that, in spite of this narrative mat. 'rial, the books 
are given such titles as The Words of ds of 

Jeremiah and the like. An Aramaic work bearing the title 
The Words of Jesus may very well have combined both 
appropriate headingB and brief narratives. A /ings 

of Jesus found in Egypt clearly do QOl 
maic original, these extr »m some current gospel 

have no bearing on the question. 

It would be hazardous to affirm that the work of whose 
existence Papias was aware originally amine Cram the hand 
of Matthew. As this a] have been a 

publican, tradition may have seised upon him most 

likely to have been the author. If the book was af 
The Words of Jesus, it is likely to ha 
anonymous, and the analogy of Hebrew usage may be in- 
structive also on this point. The disciples of famous 
rabbis would, first of all, seek to preserve in memory and 
to transmit by word of mouth the utt era nets of their 
teachers. As aids to memory, however, they would per- 
mit themselves the use of memoranda. To this method 
we owe, in a large measure, the enormous Talmudic col- 
lections. It is not impossible that some discipl is in 
old age wrote down in his vernacular sueh words and 
incidents as he remembered. The remarkable | 
tion of an earlier strand of tradition out of harm 
the prevailing view of Jesus in a later I 
in favor of this theory. Even more probability atta 
to another theory also based on Hebron The 
transmission of the decisions of a rabbi in the name of 
one of his disciples is exceedingly common in the Tal- 



THE GOSPELS 221 



mud. Similarly, a Christian belonging to the second gen- 
eration may have given the words of Jesus on the au- 
thority of Matthew, and not relying on his memory, as 
the immediate disciple might, h€ may have written down 
many a Baying and provided it with its historic Betting. 
The Aramaic gospel may in this sens,' have been from its 
•tion a gospel "according to Matthew*" It no doubt 
grew by gradual expansion, but unfortunately we have no 
means of determining its extent at the time when it was 
first translated into I Ireek. 
What is the relation of our Greek Matthew to the i 

inal Aramaic gospell P it QO version as 

more authoritative than any other, and evidently dis- 
ti them all. It* it really was one of the translations 

with which he was familiar that m ttitiOB as the 

I according to Matthew, it is likely to have gained 

this distinction above tie- others later than his time. 

When the presenl text of Matthew is critically examined, 
readily | i that it cannot l»«* a translation of an 

Aramaic original. The fact that, at Least in the vast 
majority of instances, the quotations from the Old T 
ment arc taken from the Greek version is alone decisive 
against such an assumption. 1 But while the present text 
cannot have been a rendering <>f a Semitic original, its 
'• in the second century may. There 

mnerOUB indications that the Fi: 1 has under- 

various changes— some of them of a most momentous 
character— before the end of the fourth century. < 

-" has shown that before the Council of Nieaea in 325 

M quotations which do not quite correspond 
to the ordinary tests of the so-called BeptllSgmt Version, it is very 
pvobablfl that they came from a Greek version. If the differences 
are not merely due to earlier variants supplanted in the leading ma- 
juscules by others, they may represent another Creek version or text- 
recension, of which there is considerable evidence. The supposition 
that any editor of the gospel used the Hebrew text is less likely than 
that the Greek texts consulted by those to whom we owe the gospel 
exhibited certain differences. 

ii#0*ri/J fur Xtutcttamcntlichc H'issenschaft, 1903. 



222 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 



A. D. Eusebius again and again quoted the Great Commis- 
sion in Matthew xxviii, 19, as follows: "Go ye, there- 
fore, and make disciples of all the nations in my name," 
and he has rendered it probable that the ultimately pre- 
vailing form, including the commandment to baptize and 
the trinitarian formula, represents an expansion made 
in some locality and gradually finding its way to the dif- 
ferent parts of the Church. But even the unexpanded 
form is clearly a later addition. Most critics recognize 
that the conferring of the primacy on Peter in Matthew 
xvi, 18, 19, is a similar expansion of the text in the interest 
of the growing Roman hierarchy. But Matth. xvi, 17, is 
no doubt also a later addition. It was seen already in the 
Early Church and again by Baptist scholars in the six- 
teenth century and modern exegetes that the first two 
chapters of the gospel had been subsequently placed be- 
fore the beginning of the original text. Some earlier 
exordium was probably displaced, as the first verse of 
the third chapter indicates. When it is observed that the 
majority of Old Testament quotations are found in these 
chapters, the suggestion naturally offers itself that the 
hand which wrote the story of the birth and infancy also 
introduced in the rest of the gospel references to the ful- 
filment of Old Testament prophecies. As the opening 
chapters themselves have manifestly undergone at least 
one redaction, seeing that the author of Joseph's pedi- 
gree cannot have written the narrative of the virgin birth, 
it is also possible that some of these often loosely attached 
observations on the fulfilment of prophecy are due to a 
later editor. 

But even when these palpable additions are removed, 
it is quite inconceivable that the remainder can be the 
work of the same author. That the writer who cho^ 
record the attacks of Jesus upon fundamental principles 
of the Mosaic law should have neutralized the effect of 
these criticisms by introducing statements censoring the 
least deviation from the letter of the Law, snob ftfl are 
found in Matth. vi, 17-19, can no more be comprehended 



THE GOSPELS 223 



than that Jesus himself should have uttered the self- 
condemnatory words. This is but one example among 
many showing that the original gospel has suffered inter- 
polations. These accretions are so different in character 
that it is difficult to understand them as the result of 
systematic redaction. Hilgenfeld 1 recognized these facts 
more clearly than any other scholar. Whether he was 
correct in explaining them by subsequent editorial proc- 
esses in different schools, is more doubtful. The First 
Gospel seems to have been more widely used than any 
of the others owing to its age and assumed apostolic au- 
thority. It is therefore natural that it should have 
received more marginal glosses, emendations, interpolated 
sections, and doctrinal enlargements. It is a common oc- 
currence that an ancient, greatly cherished, and fre- 
quently copied manuscript thus gathers about it more ma- 
terial foreign to the original text than later and inferior 
codices. 2 If this process is duly considered, it is easy to 
believe that the Greek Matthew in its earliest form may 
have been a translation of an Aramaic gospel, and there 
is nothing to prevent the assumption that it was one of 
several renderings of the gospel ascribed to Matthew, 
having certain peculiarities that made its claim to ac- 
curacy appear most plausible. 

Such considerations also give added credibility to the 
uniform tradition of the Early Church that the Gospel 
according to Matthew is the oldest of the Synoptics. 
Against this tradition and in favor of the priority of Mark 
it has been urged, that the latter is shorter than the others, 
that practically all that it contains is also found in the 
others, and that the historic development of Jesus' career 
comes out more clearly in it than in the others. But it is 
quite impossible to determine whether Matthew in its earl- 

1 See especially his Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1875, and his 
Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie, passim. 

2 An interesting illustration of this may be seen in Codex Venetus 
of Ecclesiasticus ; see Schmidt, The Boole of Ecclesiasticus, 1903, p. 
xxiii ff . 



224 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

iest Greek form was more extensive than Mark. As Mark 
clearly adressed himself to a different class of readers 
and had a different purpose, he may have made a selec- 
tion. The assumption that he comprehended the growth 
of Jesus' Messianic consciousness and the gradual un- 
folding of his Messianic programme better than the other 
evangelists is not well founded. It is supposed that he 
alone understood the importance of the episode at Cae- 
sarea Philippi, and realized that this was the turning-point 
in the career of Jesus, the time when he first revealed the 
secret of his Messiahship. But Mark, who clearly uses 
the term "Son of Man" as a Messianic title, puts this as a 
self-designation on the lips of Jesus before the visit to 
Caesarea Philippi. Concerning the real nature of this 
term he shows no more knowledge than Matthew, and 
the true significance of Jesus' question to his disciples 
appears to have been as little recognized by him as by 
Matthew. The early tradition that Jesus never assumed 
for himself any unmistakable Messianic title and actually 
forbade his disciples to say that he was the Messiah, facts 
which in the light of the conviction of his disciples that 
he was the Messiah were naturally interpret. iify- 

ing that during his life-time he had wished his official 
character to be unknown, is better preserved in Matthew 
than in Mark. For the former 1 allows Jesus to pres 
his Messianic incognito to the end, even in the presence 
of the high-priest, while the latter, 2 contrary to both Mat- 
thew and Luke, makes Jesus distinctly affirm to an out- 
sider his Messiahship. 

Papias connected the Second Gospel directly with Mark, 
and indirectly with Peter. The latter must be regarded 
as an after-thought. There is every reason to believe that 
the gospel was written in Rome. We have no trustworthy 
historic evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Bir 

'■Matth., xxvi, 64, "Thou sayest" (not I) ; similarly, Lulc xxii. 70: 
"Ye say that I am." Cf. Mcrx, Das Evanoclium Matthau* 
391 ff. 

2 Marie, xiv, 62, "I am." 



THE GOSPELS 225 



the tradition developed that he had been the first bishop 
of Rome, the desire would naturally be felt to give his 
authority to the gospel recognized in that church. An 
earlier tradition that it was written by Mark could not be 
set aside ; but it was possible to bring the author into con- 
nection with Peter. Who the Mark was on whose au- 
thority it was presented, we do not know. There is no 
tradition to the effect that it was originally written in 
Aramaic, and it does not have the appearance of being a 
translation. The emphasis given to the thaumaturgical 
powers of Jesus, his successful exorcisms, and his relations 
to the world of demons who know the secret of his Mes- 
siahship, is precisely what might be expected in a Hellen- 
istic Jew writing with the view to convincing Romans of 
his supernatural greatness and authority. That the 
writer was familiar with the Greek Matthew, is alto- 
gether probable. He adds no important new material. 
But his variations show that he exercised the same lib- 
erty, and consulted the form of oral tradition prevalent in 
his circle in the same manner, as all other early Christian 
writers with whom we are familiar. There is nowhere 
any leaning upon an absolutely authoritative source. As 
a writer Mark distinguishes himself favorably by his 
conciseness of statement, his vivid style, and his local 
coloring. His gospel has remained comparatively free 
from later additions. No one added to it a gospel of the 
infancy, as in the case of the other Synoptics. The orig- 
inal ending seems to be lost. A substitute found its way 
into many copies. Aristion has been supposed to be its 
author, but on insufficient grounds. 1 Another shorter 
substitute has also been preserved, which is of still later 
origin. 

The Third Gospel apparently at one time circulated 
without the name of Luke. Marcion was familiar with a 
gospel exhibiting so marked a similarity to the Gospel 
according to Luke that there is scarcely room for doubt 

x See P. Kohrbach, Der Schluss des Marcus Evangeliums, 1894; 
Conybeare, Expositor, 1893, p. 241 ff. 
15 



226 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

as to its substantial identity. But it does not seem to have 
had the name of Luke attached to it, and it showed some 
important deviations from the present form. The first 
two chapters were lacking, and here and there different 
readings were found. It is possible that the gospel had 
already suffered somewhat through the bias of Ebionitish 
and Gnostic copyists, as it certainly has suffered since 
through the prepossessions of Catholic scribes. Whether 
Marcion's gospel contained the Preface i, 1-4, is uncertain, 
but cannot be said to be improbable. It does not men- 
tion the name of the writer, and gives no clue to the 
authorship to anyone who has no independent knowledge 
of who the friend of Theophilus was. Such knowledge 
we do not possess, and it may be questioned whether Mar- 
cion did. There is no reason to doubt the identity of the 
author of the gospel with the compiler of Acts. As one 
of the sources used by the latter may have been written 
by Luke, the companion of Paul, it is easy to account for 
the tradition that makes him the author of both works. 
There is no claim to Lukan authorship in the preface to 
either, and the internal evidence is strongly against the 
assumption that the author of the We-Source had any- 
thing to do with the composition of the larger works. 
From the preface we gain the same impression as from the 
fragments of Papias. The author is acquainted with 
numerous gospels, is displeased with their lack of order 
and incompleteness, distrusts their accuracy, and draws 
upon the living streams of tradition. Among the gospels 
that he had at his disposal Matthew, Mark and an other- 
wise unknown work largely used in the section, ix, 51- 
xviii, 14, seem to have been the most important. That he 
wrote later than Matthew and Mark is to-day generally 
acknowledged by critics; that he knew his predecessors 
and derived the bulk of his information from them is the 
most natural conclusion, though it has been questioned by 
some. It appears to the present writer a serious mistake 
to begin the comparison of Matthew and Luke with the 
first two chapters of each, and to allow the result to influ- 



THE GOSPELS 227 



ence the final decision. Both of these gospels of the in- 
fancy are later additions and themselves of highly com- 
posite character. Luke i, 5-ii, 52, iii, 23-38, forms a sec- 
tion made up of extracts from a Book of Zechariah; a 
Jewish Psalm, wrongly ascribed first to Elizabeth, and 
then in the majority of manuscripts to Mary; a story of 
the birth of Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary, sub- 
sequently re-touched by an editor believing in the virgin- 
birth; and a genealogy intended to prove that the father 
of Jesus was a descendant of David. Even if it were 
easier than it is to determine the relation of the various 
elements entering into this composition to the gospel of 
the infancy in Matthew, little light would be thrown by 
it on the relative age of the gospels of the ministry of 
Jesus to which they have been prefixed. 

As we do not know either the general character or 
the age of the source upon which the author has drawn for 
the material not found in the other Synoptics, no inference 
is possible as to his own age and attitude toward Matthew 
and Mark from his use of it. Nor does the peculiar form 
in which he quotes the Synoptic apocalypse allow any con- 
clusion in reference to its wording in the text that lies 
behind all the three evangelists. The attempts to solve 
these problems by the so-called " Two-Source Theory" 
cannot be regarded as successful. According to this 
theory, in its most popular and plausible form, the authors 
of Matthew and Luke had before them the Gospel of Mark, 
and all three made use of a collection of Sayings of Jesus 
written in Greek and now lost. The more closely the Gos- 
pel of Mark is compared with what may be regarded as 
the most original form of Matthew both as respects the 
utterances of Jesus and the general character of his min- 
istry, the more difficult it is to maintain the priority of 
Mark. While there is no a priori objection to supposing 
that among the early Christian works that have been 
lost there once was such a Logia Jesu as many modern 
scholars resort to for the explanation of the Synoptic 
problem, the hypothesis seems unnecessary, has no foun- 



228 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

dation in early tradition, and is only productive of new 
difficulties. If Mark only occasionally used this source, 
deriving his information in the main from some living au- 
thority or some other gospel, why should he have copied 
the few sayings so differently from Matthew and Luke, 
and why should he have passed by so much genuine and 
valuable material in a book he deemed worthy of use? 
If Matthew was anxious, as he apparently was, to com- 
municate all that Jesus said, why should he have delib- 
erately left out such precious parables as those of the 
Lost Coin, the Lost Sheep, the Lost Son, the Good Samari- 
tan, the Pharisee and the Publican and the Rich Man and 
Lazarus? If Luke drew most extensively from this 
source, how are the similar omissions in his gospel and 
the apparent looseness of quotation in numerous places 
to be accounted for ? Is it to be supposed that Mark failed 
to appreciate the beauty of the Lord's Prayer, and that 
neither Matthew nor Mark was moved by the pathos of 
the Prodigal Son? If such a book existed coming with 
the authority of an apostle and commending itself to the 
evangelists so highly that they actually copied from it 
the words of Jesus, is it likely that the result should have 
been the numerous variants in the simplest sayings and 
the peculiar selection of material ? It is difficult to avoid 
the impression that forces have been at work in the pro- 
duction of our gospels that would have been checked, if 
the method had been that of simply copying a common, 
authoritative document. 

The individual freedom that under all circumstances 
must be granted, and the peculiar relations of the three 
writers, seem to find their most natural explanation, if 
it is supposed, in harmony with the earliest tradition, that 
the First Evangelist translated his work from an Aramaic 
original ascribed to Matthew, that the Second Evangelist 
looked upon this Greek gospel as one of many more or less 
doubtful attempts to render the original text, adopted 
its general outline and drew upon it largely but also 
leaned on the tradition of his church, and that the Third 



THE GOSPELS 229 



Evangelist used his two predecessors, without assign- 
ing to them any higher authority than that of at least one 
other gospel which he used, but also endeavored to find 
through oral sources what the truth was, and quoted the 
sayings of Jesus in the form familiar to him from the 
usage of his church or province. The first translations of 
the words of Jesus were no doubt made in a manner simi- 
lar to the first translations of the Hebrew Scriptures 
among Hellenistic Jews. They were Targums. To sup- 
plement the imperfect knowledge of the sacred language 
a methurgeman rendered into the vernacular section by 
section the text read. Thus the extant Aramaic Targums 
and the earlier Greek versions came into existence. How 
much freedom the interpreter might use depended on his 
own judgment and the importance of what he explained. 
We are only too well acquainted with the liberties taken 
by some, while we admire the accuracy and skill of others. 
In the case of the Old Testament we are fortunate enough 
to have, if not the original text, at least one of its direct 
descendants speaking its own language. The Aramaic 
gospel is lost, and not a single saying of Jesus has come 
down to us in his own vernacular through any channel. 
The Greek gospels themselves have undergone so many 
changes that we are in a far worse plight than those who 
could examine the first drafts of these documents. 

In attempting to fix the dates of the Synoptic gospels, 
it is of the utmost importance to bear in mind what may 
be ascertained concerning the composition of these works. 
When so careful a critic as Pfleiderer 1 allows himself to be 
influenced by some of the most obvious interpolations in 
Matthew to date the entire gospel in ca. 140 A. D., a caveat 
is necessary. What would be thought of an Old Testa- 
ment critic who would place the whole Book of Amos in 
the Babylonian Exile, or the entire Books of Isaiah and 
Jeremiah in the Maccabaean age because of the sections 
that unmistakably come from these late periods? Stu- 
dents of the Old Testament have learnt to distinguish 

1 T)as Vrchristentum 2 , 1902. 



230 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

between the age of a book in substantially its present form 
and the age of its various component parts. Some parts 
of our Matthew may be l?ter than Pneiderer's date for the 
book. The value of determining when even the smallest 
and youngest section was written should not be under- 
estimated. But the main interest is to discover, if pos- 
sible, the date of the earliest part. When was the first 
draft made of the Greek Matthew? Three facts may 
throw some light on this question. Eusebius 1 records 
that in the reign of Trajan (98-117 A. D.) "many disciples, 
full of zeal for the divine word, followed the old exhorta- 
tion of the Saviour, distributed their goods to the poor, 
left their country and became evangelists, holding it to 
be an honor to preach the doctrine of the faith to those to 
whom it was unknown, and to place in their hands the 
written text of the divine gospels. ' ' This is evidently the 
reflection of a historic fact. The presentation in Greek of 
the Aramaic gospel ascribed to Matthew was coincident 
with the break of the Jewish Christian Church in Pales- 
tine with Judaism and the consequent devotion of many 
of its members to a missionary propaganda amonc: the 
Gentiles. The appearance of other gospels in Greek, 
whether as translations of the Aramaic gospel, or as inde- 
pendent accounts soon after the first, made the epoch 
memorable ; and it is by no means improbable that the first 
interpreters were at the same time exhorters, evangelists 
in every sense of the word. If the tradition, naturally 
somewhat misunderstood by Eusebius, is well founded, it 
may signify that Matthew, Mark and Luke in their earli- 
est Greek form appeared in the beginning of the second 
century. 

Another fact points in the same direction. The Synop- 
tic apocalypse manifestly comes from a Semitic original, 
but the differences between the three versions are not such 
as can be explained by peculiarities of translation. That 
it has gone from Matthew to Mark, and from both to 

1 Hist. Eccl, III, 37, 2. 



THE GOSPELS ' 231 



Luke, is seen on careful examination. Matthew has pre- 
served the expectation of the coming of the Messiah im- 
mediately after the distress of the siege of Jerusalem, 1 
the anxiety lest the flight be on the sabbath, and the em- 
phasis on the conflict with heathen nations. Mark can no 
longer write "immediately after the distress of those 
days," eliminates the reference to the sabbath, and intro- 
duces persecutions in synagogues, and before governors 
and kings. Luke follows his example, but goes beyond 
him by placing "the times of the Gentiles" when they 
shall trample Jerusalem under foot between the destruc- 
tion of the city and the advent of the Messiah. Well- 
hausen has convincingly shown that the Aramaic apoca- 
lypse originated in the days of the siege of Jerusalem, and 
he is probably right in regarding it as a non-Christian 
product. Whether it was appropriated to Christian use 
and placed on the lips of Jesus already by the author of 
the Aramaic gospel, or circulated independently in a 
Greek translation and was subsequently incorporated in 
the Greek Matthew, is a delicate question to answer. In 
favor of the latter alternative it may be said that the 
Son of Man as a Messianic title, not found as yet in the 
apocalypses of the reign of Domitian (81-96 A. D.), 
Baruch, Ezra, the original Parables of Enoch, and John, 
seems to have appeared for the first time in Christian 
writings in the Greek translation of this apocalypse, and 
that the Gnostic influence of the conception of a Celestial 
Son of the Macrocosmic Man, ultimately of Indian origin, 
which at any rate facilitated the introduction of the in- 



catastrophe, that is the cause of this preservation of the original form, 
though it may be questioned whether Matthew understood the quoted 
apocalypse to affirm the coming of the Messiah within a month, or a 
year, or a generation. Matthew realized that concerning the exact 
time no man and not even the angels of the heavens, but only the 
Father, had any knowledge. ' l Not even the Son ' ' is an addition prob- 
ably made in the second half of the second century, not found in our 
earliest witnesses to the text. There is probably an interpolation 
also in Mark, though the testimony is less conclusive. 



232 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

felicitous rendering of the Aramaic bar-nasha, cannot so 
easily be understood in the case of the translator of the 
whole gospel, who nowhere else shows any sign of similar 
tendencies. Yet this apocalypse must have been inter- 
polated at an early time, as it found its way through Mat- 
thew into Mark and Luke. A date subsequent to the 
reign of Domitian is probable. 

A third indication of the same period is the use of the 
book entitled The Wisdom of God by Matthew and Luke. 
Its name is given only by Luke, 1 but it seems to have been 
already quoted by Matthew. 2 A generation must be sup- 
posed to have elapsed before a reference to the murder of 
Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, during the siege of Jeru- 
salem can have been placed on the lips of Jesus. The 
Wisdom of God evidently lay before these authors (or at 
least before Luke, if the passage in Matthew is an inter- 
polation) in a Greek text. Even if no other part of this 
work were known to us than the words immediately 
quoted, this quotation alone would show that the writer, 
or writers, who used it belonged to a time far subsequent 
to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. It is not improbable, 
however, that the Synoptic apocalypse once was incorpor- 
ated in it, and together with its other parts translated 
into Greek under the title The Wisdom of God. But the 
argument from the character of each section as to the 
late date of the gospels would in no wise be invalidated, if 
they should prove to have been at all times two independ- 
ent works. That the Greek texts of Matthew, Mark and 
Luke, in their most primitive form, are not likely to have 
been written before the reign of Trajan, seems to be the 
inevitable conclusion from all the facts observed. So far 
as Luke is concerned his acquaintance with the Antiqui- 
ties of Josephus remains a fact, even when the story of the 
infancy is ascribed to later hands, and clearly indicates 
that he wrote in the second century. 

If none of the gospels, then, that we can consult were 

1 XI, 49. 

2 XXIII, 34 ff. 



THE GOSPELS 233 



written by apostles or eye-witnesses, or existed at all 
before some sixty years or more had passed since the 
death of Jesus, to what extent can such accounts be re- 
garded as trustworthy? Is it possible to lay down a line 
of evidence by which a nucleus of historic facts can be 
rendered probable? Can the historic figure be at all dis- 
cerned through the veil of myth and legend? Can the 
words he actually uttered be gathered from these late 
translations, suffering from a host of accidental or inten- 
tional changes, weighed down with layer after layer of 
corrections, comments and interpolations? Is it possible 
to prove even the historic existence of the teacher of Naz- 
areth? Such questions are not asked only by blind unbe- 
lief, determined incredulity, antipathy to the character 
portrayed, and a perverse moral attitude, preferring per- 
manent doubt to an unwelcome truth ; but also, and most 
insistently, by legitimate historic investigation, eager for 
the truth, patient in the search for it, grateful for every 
discovery, willing to hold or to abandon a position as the 
facts seem to demand, ready to doubt in order that faith 
may rest on tested foundations, rejoicing in the advance 
of knowledge, capable of appreciation, and sympathetic 
with the great facts and factors in the religious history of 
man. 

The present writer has considered every such question 
that has occurred to his mind. The more radical and far- 
reaching they have been, the more urgent and important 
they seemed to him. So far as he is aware, the results 
were never dictated by his desire, or shaped by his prepos- 
session. If an honest dealing with the facts should have 
seemed to lead to a negative answer to all these inquiries, 
he trusts that he would have had the moral fortitude to 
abide by his convictions, the confidence that somehow the 
truth is worth more than anything wrongly believed to be 
the truth, and the good sense to continue his questioning. 
It should be freely admitted, however, that it was with 
a deep satisfaction the author found himself borne along 
by the force of what seemed to him incontrovertible facts 



234 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

I to the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, 
that some of the events of his life may be known to us, 
that some of his words may be recovered, and that his 
personality, imperfectly as we know it, and widely as it 
differed from the estimate of the church, is as sublime 
and potent for good as ever. 

When the First Gospel is read in the light of an intel- 
ligent criticism, the internal evidence coincides with the 
earliest external testimony that brings it into connection 
with an Aramaic work ascribed to Matthew. It is mani- 
fest that the words here recorded were, to a large extent 
at least, uttered originally, not in Greek, not even such 
Greek as Hellenistic Jews spoke, but in Aramaic. If none 
of them were spoken by Jesus, or even if the reputed 
speaker never existed, they must have come from the lips 
of some teacher, or teachers, using the Aramaic language. 
Under no circumstances, therefore, can these sayings be 
the invention of our Greek evangelists. When they are 
translated back into the Galilean dialect of the Aramaic, 
as to some extent it is possible to do, they reveal an even 
more remarkable originality than in the Greek. If al- 
ready the Greek text, or any modern version, impresses 
the thoughtful reader with the extraordinary power and 
beauty of these pithy sayings, parables and addresses, 
the effect is enhanced when the words are considered in 
his own vernacular. But to this general impression is 
often added the startling consciousness that behind some 
familiar saying there lies a new and strikingly original 
utterance, not dreamed of by the interpreters of the 
Greek text. In some cases that have already been con- 
sidered, in which the term "son of man" occurred, the 
new sayings are not only original, and in a high degree 
suggestive of independent and radical thought, but also, 
naturally interpreted, in marked contrast with the order 
of ideas likely to have been entertained by the Aramaic 
speaking apostolate or propagators of the Messianic sen- 
timent. Some explanation of this remarkable phenome- 
non must be found, and the most obvious is that the new 



THE GOSPELS 235 



treasures come from the same mind that gave to the 
world the parables whose beauty no version could hide. 
These sayings possess evidential value just in proportion 
as they contradict the notions current in the circles 
through which they were transmitted. Believers in the 
Messiahship of Jesus cannot have invented for him 
speeches in which extraordinary powers are ascribed to 
man in general, while no prerogatives are reserved for 
the Messiah. If this process of translation into the Ara- 
maic sometimes reveals to us such practically new sayings, 
too simple and yet profound to be the accidental group- 
ings of words in a play of chance, and intelligible only 
as the products of a great and independent mind, it often 
shows the secondary character of passages that bear 
the marks of original composition in Greek, and cannot 
readily be turned into the Semitic dialect. It should not 
be necessary to insist that the first duty of the exegete 
is to test every reported utterance of Jesus in its probable 
Aramaic form, and that he who is incompetent to do this 
or neglects it must leave to others the most vital question 
concerning the life and teaching of Jesus. 

On the other hand, the critical study of the Greek texts 
is as necessary as ever, and familiarity with the course of 
criticism and insight into the problems lead to the same 
conclusions. By comparison of the different reports, the 
relatively oldest Greek form of a saying may be estab- 
lished, and by observation of the tendencies at work in 
the centers whence the gospels have come later additions 
may be eliminated. Certain inferences may also be 
drawn from the earlier operation of these tendencies as 
to the changes a saying may already have undergone be- 
fore the first Greek gospel was written. By such proc- 
esses scholars have, without any consideration of the orig- 
inal Aramaic, reached the conviction that the earliest 
form of many a parable, address and apothegm was so 
different from the present form that it can be explained 
only by the persistence of an old tradition reflecting the 
immediate expression of an original and fruitful genius. 



236 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 



Divested of later modifications and additions, most of the 
parables are so unlike the proverbial sayings and similes 
that might be culled from Hebrew literature, so mani- 
festly the products of one mind, so inconc with 
their constant emphasis on the kingdom of heaven and 
the Father in heaven, as the instruments of ianic 
propaganda made by a group of "hers 
in the interest of the Nazarene, or as a means of rallying 
men around the symbol of his name, I 
nihil, and so impossible to understand as anyt ; 
than utterances of the man who 
the great spiritual movement, that th< •;. 
themselves evidences of his historical exist 11 ns 
of his character and thought 

Many students have been pn 
avoidance on the part - of assuming cog- 

nized Messianic title, the impression that he did n 
recognition as the Messiah even from i 

fact that he forbade his disc that he 

Messiah, and his apparent retieenee to the end in regard 
to his claims. The ordinary attemptl ain thil 

culiar attitude are quite tmsatisfaetory. It is lapp 
that he disapproved of the eurrenl dm idea, and had 

framed for himself a different id. -a antici] 
siastical conception of the Christ, and that I t to 

prepare his disciples for accepting him as the Messiah in 
this higher sense. Botofsnchp d train:: 

is no indication. He do< taught tl 

the distinction between the good and powerful kin_ 
Israel and conqueror of the world whom I 
poraries regarded thorn* having a right 

for in accordance with the prophetic word and th 
different kind of Messiah he considered hi] 
He can scarcely have cherished the ambition 
becoming the king of Israel and of the world in ai 
without attaching to this office sufficient import 
communicate something of its natnr 
ciples. Even students of the Qi ,, have 



THE GOSPELS 237 



left untouched the question as to the meaning of the term 
Son of Man have been led to see that the problem arises 
from the survival along with the new estimate of him as 
the Messiah, naturally modified by the impression of his 
personality and his spirit, of a primitive tradition that 
Jesus never claimed for himself Messiahship in any sense, 
present or future, political or metaphysical, and prohib- 
ited his disciples from making such claims for him, a tra- 
dition too old and strongly rooted to be eradicated. 1 The 
more marked the contrast is between this early tradition 
and the apostolic conception, the more unavoidable is the 
conclusion that the former can only be the reflection of 
the historic reality. How could those who proclaimed 
him as the Messiah have invented the difficulties they 
were at such pains to circumvent by the assumption that 
Jesus carefully guarded his Messianic secret until his 
resurrection should rewal it I 

Similar facts, only secondary to this in importance, 
have been observed by many scholars. 1 Mark" has pre- 
served th is to the young ruler addre 
him as Good Master, "Why callesl thou me good! None 
is good save one, God only." This certainly does not rep- 
resent the later feeling concerning Mark also 
records that the relatives of Jesus held him to be beside 
himself. 4 This is altogether probable, but it is not likely 
to have been invented at a later time. Schmiedel 1 has 
added to these r the words "neither the Son" in 
Mark xiii. 32, and the cry on the cross, "My God, my God, 
vrhy hast thou forsaken me?" in Matthew xxvii, 46. But 
the first is lacking in the original text of Matthew xxiv, 
36, 6 and likely to be an interpolation in Mark also. It 

1 See especially Wrede, Das Messiasgcheimniss, 1901. 

1 See especially Schmiedel, articles Gospels in Encyclopaedia Biblica, 
Vol. II, 1901. 

a X, 17 ff. 

4 III, 21. 

6 7. c, col. 1881. 

8 See the careful discussion by Merx, Das Evangelium Matthaeus, 
1902, p. 356. 



238 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

introduces a juxtaposition of "the Father" and "the 
Son" that is wholly foreign to the thought of Jesus, places 
"the Son" with emphasis above the angels, and only pre- 
supposes such a doctrine of subordination as was widely 
cherished in the Church throughout the second century 
and later. The second passage is a quotation from a sup- 
posedly Messianic Psalm, deemed appropriate by the 
Early Church, to be understood in the li^ht of Semitic 
thought and Biblical usage, not well author since 

| there is no disciple present to hear the words, improbable 

I as an utterance of Jesus, either as a part of a Messianic 
programme or as a Bpontani session of a sense of 

failure and a lack of faith in tl. 

and explicable at any time before the doctrine of the 
incarnation had been fully developed. 1 

More importance is to be attached to arkable 

fact that, while the evan nly. and the Aramaic 

speaking followers of Jesus pr rly time, 

believed that he had wrought an abundance of miracles, 
the gospels have nerert] iition 

according to which ho positively refo J sign, 

and declared that no sign ihoilld 

J tion, except the sign of Jonah, by w! 

' the preaching of repentance. It hat 
that he could not do any mighty works in 
cause of the unbelief of its people m, of 

course, the absence of miracles: and the 
after-thought. An inventor might as well fa 
to him miracles, and saved the explanation. But I 
was a strong tradition to reckon with, 
is possible to observe by the differi • two 

evangelists, that while one has prefl 
ment that Jesus "taught the multitu 
ing for signs," has changed it into a nam 
"he healed the multitudes." To some extent t 
terpretation of Old Testament language may have 

*See Brandt. Die EvaiwcUschc Gcschichte, U iOff 

3 Marl-, vi, 5 ff ; Matth.. xiii, 58. 



THE GOSPELS 239 



responsible for such changes. In Matth. xi, 5, Jesus 
answers the straightforward question sent him by John 
the Baptist, whether he is the Messiah or they should look 
for another, by a statement quoted from Isaiah xxxv, 5 ff., 
lxi, 1, that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are 
cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor 
have the gospel preached to them. It is evident that 
Jesus had in mind the obvious meaning of these words in 
the prophetic book. They are there figures of speech 
referring to the spiritual apprehension of God's ways and 
work. "Report to John," he virtually says, ''that you 
have found the good news of the coming of the kingdom 
of heaven accept.-, | by ti E men." That seemed to 

him more important than the question as to the Messiah- 
ship. The evangelists, however, understood the saving 
literally, and did then - find in the lift' of Jesus such 

works as he had positively declared should not be given 
to his contemporaries, in order that no detail of their Mes- 
sianic picture should if wanting. 

In various ways tie- conviction thus forces itself upon 
the historian that it is possible to go behind the records 
and to reach a trustworthy tradition, expressing itself first 
orally, then in the Aramaic gospel, which on critical points 
at least it is possible t<> with approximate accu- 

racy, and finally in precious survivals preserved, in spite of 
the different conceptions of the evangelists, in the G 
Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and, on 
rare occasions, in the Gospel according to John, the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews and elsewhere. 



CHAPTER X 

THE LIFE OF JES, 

When it is recognized that the Synoptic in spite 

of their late date and their didactic, rather than historical, 
character, contain survivals of an early tradition, all (he 
more reliable as it contradicts the fundamental positions of 
these writings, a point of departan en obtained 

whence it is possible to proceed to a critical sifting of the 
entire material. Transformations of original i and 

more exact statement- r ac- 

cretions may be eliminated. The itorio 

figure of Jesus become discernible. What is thus : 
tively gained may seem slight in comparison with tl 
of detail that once appeared to be available. Here as else- 
where we must be satisfied with know 

have more accurate knowledge. Hut a handful of reason- 
ably assured facts is worth moi int of 
view than a vast mass of comparatively late tradil 
few glimpses of the real life of Jesus may allow 08 1 
ceive a career more natural, a spiritual attitude more 
prehensible, a character of greater dignity and int: 
worth, a teaching more profound than tl 
their distance in time, with their historic limitations, and 
under the pressure of their peculiar religious dein; 
were capable of appreciating. 

There is no valid reason to doubt tl i was born in 

Galilee, and that he was the son of a carpenter by the D 
of Joseph and his wife Mariam, or Mary. The event prob- 
ably occurred a few years before the Dionysian era. Luke 1 

1 The terms ' ' Matthew ' ' and ' ' Luke ' ' have been preserved, though 
in the preceding chapter it has been shown, not only that Ma - 
and Luke are not the authors of the Greek gospels bearing their 
names, but also that the first two chapters in each of these goepeli 

are later additions, themselves of highly composite origin. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 241 

indeed brings the birth of Jesus into connection with the 
census under Quirinius that took place in the year 6 A. D. 1 
But he also declares that the conception of John happened 
in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, and the natural im- 
pression is that this statement of time is intended to cover 
the angel's visit to Mary as well. Herod died ten years be- 
fore the census of Quirinius, in 4 B. Cr As Matthew also 
places the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod, this 
seems to be the older tradition. Luke clearly believed that 
the census under Quirinius occurred in the days of King 
Herod 3 , and saw in it an occasion for the journey of Joseph 
and his wife to Bethlehem where the Messiah was to be 
born. This is rendered more probable by tin* fact that he 
dates the public appearance of John in the fifteenth year of 
Tiberius. I A. 1).. and regards • ho manifestly 

'II, 2; Josephus, Ant., xvii, 355; xviii, 1. f. Cf. the excellent 
discussion of this census by Schiirrr, (Itscfucht* <l<s jaduschtn Volkes, 
3rd ed., 1901, I, 508-543. The name of the I Ticial praised in 

the mutilated inscription found near Tivoli in 1704 has unfortunately 
not been preserve. 1, and it is uncertain whethev he is said to have 
been h oat us AugutH twice, for install in CUieia and Pam- 

phylia and another time in Syria, oi t of Syria. The ref- 

in Tacitus to the victory of Quirinius over the Homonadonsians 
soon after his consulate in 12 B.C. dues not prove that he was gov- 
ernor of Syria in 3-2 B.C., as long as it has not been shown that 
Cilicia belonged to Syria, and was not an imperial province, in the 
time of Augustus. Cf. Rudolph Hilgenfeld in Ztitschrift fiir IVissen- 
schaftlichc Thiologic, 1880, p. 98 ff., and Adolph Hilgenfeld, ibid., 
1892, p. 196 ff. Eamsay has produced no evidence of a census in 
Judaea before 6 A. D. (Was Christ born in Bethleheml 1898). 

Tertullian's statement (Adv. Mansion, IV, 19) that there was a 
census in Judaea under Sentius Saturninus (9-6 B.C.) is without 
support and clearly erroneous. Before the death of Herod (4 B.C.) 
there can have beet no Roman census in Judaea, and citizens of 
Galilee can have had nothing to do with any Judaean census. 

2 Cf. the discussion of this date by C. H. Turner in Hastings' Dic- 
tionary of the Bibie, II, 483 ff. 

•1,5. 

4 III, 1. Before the time of Xerva civil years were reckoned in 

Rome by the consuls. In the exceptional cases when regnal years 

were used, they were counted from the actual day of accession. The 

year extending from the 19th August, 28, to the 18th August, 29, was 

16 



242 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

appeared soon after, as "about thirty years of age." 
While the statement is not as exact as it could be desired, 1 
it unquestionably points to the earlier period. The story of 
the Magi and the massacre of infants in Matthew presup- 
poses a tradition placing Jesus' birth in the time of Herod. 
In John ii, 20 the temple is said to have been in building 
forty-six years. Herod began the main structure in 20 B. 
C. Archaelaus may have added a wing; there is no 
dence or likelihood that the Roman procurators did anything 
to the temple. From 41 A. D. Agrippa I built on the sanc- 
tuary, and the temple was finished under A«:rippa II in 65 
A. D. 2 Howe ver the years actually 

may have been counted, no light is thrown by the statement 
upon the chronology of Jesus' life. In John viii, oT the - 
ask, "Thou art not yet fit • t thou seen Abra- 

ham?" It may perhaps be inferred from this that the Fourth 
Evangelist looked upon J 
years when this question > 

the opinion of some pi Minor that • 

tained an age of between forty and fl 
doubtful whether, in either genuine and old tradition 

can be assumed. If tin- Bl l.-hem is 

connected with the conjunct* ipiter and Saturn in 

Pisces or the succeeding still of these 

planets in Aries, and if Jesus v, Uy conceived or 

probably regarded as the fifteenth of Til^rius's reign. But if the 
author was influenced by the custom prevaile me of Trajan, 

he may have considered the time from the 19th the 31st 

December, 14, as the first, and the tribunician year 2$ as the fifteenth. 
The consuls of the year 29 were Rubellius Geminus and Rufus Gemi- 
nus. 

1 Annas (6-15 A. D.) is wrongly made hie! the same time 

as Caiaphas (18-36 A.D.); Antipu 

contrary to Josephus, made Tetrarch of Ifen niaa, who 

36 B. C, is made tetrarch at this tim. 

quite indefinite. Even the fifteenth year of Tiberius : ike's 

impression merely of the account given by .T f Pilate's pro- 

curatorship. Cf. Keim, Gcschichtc Jtsu. Ill 

8 Cf . Keim, 1. c, I, 615 f . 

3 II, 22, 5. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 243 

born at the time when one or the other of these conjunc- 
tions occupied the attention of astrologers, his birth would 
have occurred between the spring of 7 B. C. and the end of 
5 B. C. There can be no question about the astrological im- 
portance especially of the conjunctio maxima in 6 B. C. ; but 
it may be seriously questioned whether the conception and 
birth of Jesus synchronized with the significant movements 
of the two planets. Nevertheless, it is not improbable that 
Jesus was born toward the end of the reign of Herod. The 
day of his birth is as little known as the year. The early 
church celebrated as his birth-day the festival of the 
epiphany of Dionysus on the sixth of January, and the Ar- 
menian church still continues this custom; the Roman 
church since the fourth century celebrates the natalis solis 
invicti on the twenty-fifth of December. 

That the parent- u lived in Nazareth, and that he 

was universally regarded as a native of that place, is the im- 
pression left by the gospels. It is uncertain, however, 
whether the Nazareth mentioned is identical with the pres- 
ent En Nazura. No town by this name occurs in the Old 
Testament, the works of Josephus, or the Talmud. Cheyne 1 
questions its v tence in the first century, and explains 

Nazareth as Galilee, Nazarene in Matth. ii, 23 as Galilean, 
referring to Isaiah ix, 1 ff., the Talmudic J<shu ha nozcri 2 
as Jesus the Galilean, and, following Halevy and Well- 
hausen, 3 Gennesareth as Galilee. The most important of 
these positions would be tenable even if it should be possible 
to prove that there was a Galilean town of Nazareth. Hal- 
evy 4 looks for such a place near the Lake of Galilee. Of 
this, however, there is no evidence, and the modern Nazareth 
is most probably the place where Jesus was born. The 
story of the Magi 8 reveals the source of the idea that 
Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This story rests upon 

1 Encyclopaedia Biblica, III, 3360 ff. 

2 Aboda Zara, 17a. 

3 Israelische und jildische Geschichte, 3rd ed., 1897. p. 266, 
* Revue Semitique, 1903, p. 232 ff, 

5 Matth., ii, 1 ff. 



244 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH 



the assumption current in antiquity that the fate of men 
and nations may be read in the stars. While the writer 
himself may have conceived of the star that went before 
the Magi "until it came and stood over where the young 
child was" as a new and startling celestial phenomenon, 
the tradition upon which he drew no doubt had its 
origin in the astrologically important observation that about 
the time when Jesus must have been born there occurred the 
greatest of all conjunctions, that of Jnpit Saturn in 

the Zodiacal sign of Aries, the house oi the sun at the vernal 
equinox. According to Kepler, 1 there was a conjunction 
of Jupiter and Saturn in Piece! about the 22d of June, 7 
B. C. and in February-May, 6 B. C, a stillgreater con- 
junction when Mars approached Juph 

addition to them, the sun wit) lit-s Venus and Mer- 

cury also appeared in or n 
in asking, "What could the Chald 

extant rules of their art, conjecture but an event of the very 
greatest importance T M The lang 
Kepler to assume thai "together with and besides i 
great conjunctions" a comet ap ntlv 

called attention to a demotic papyrus in the Berlin 
giving the positions of the plat) 17 B. C. to 1" A D. 1 

This table indicates a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 
Aries from the 12th Bpiphi 23 of An 
8th Thot, 24, from the 5th Meehir to th 
from the 1st Choiak to the 3d Mechir, 25. With t 1 
such data and due observation of the apparent retrogres- 
sions of the planets, Oefele lias figured out that 

1 Opera Omnia, ed. Frisrh. 1 

2 Opera Omnia, IV, 857, Kepler does not BMB to have pivon the 
technical sense of a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Ari.>s to the 
term conjunctio maxima, but simply conjunct: 
appears to think of the Conjunction in Piseei as well as that in ! 
and the concourse of other planets beside the largest ones in the seme 
region of the sky, when he speaks of "solchen conjunctionibus wuu- 
imis. " 

'Die Angabcn der Berliner Planetcn1af<l \r rtrf> . 

slop der Empfangnis Christi in Mitteitung 
Gescllsehaft, 1903, 2 and 6, 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 245 

junction in Pisces referred to by Kepler ended seven days 
before the first conjunction in Aries, that there were three 
periods of conjunction in Aries interrupted by one in Pisces, 
that one of these periods began the 15th April, 6 B. C, that 
Jupiter became stationary, or ''stood," in Aries on the 27th 
December, 6 B. C, and that Jesus was conceived on the 15th 
April of that year and found in Bethlehem on the 27th De- 
cember by the Blag] who had started from Jerusalem on the 
25th November. Oefele shows by the testimony of cunei- 
form tablets that Babylonian astrologers were in the habit 
of predicting the effect of planetary positions upon Martu, 
Or Syria. The value of his researches lies in pointing out 
how necessarily this conjunction, occurring only a few 
times in a millennium, must have led observers of the stars 
to look for extraordinary events and to find horoscopes im- 
plying onusua] destines. There can be little donbt that as- 
trology helped to create an atmosphere of expectancy at this 

time. But it should also be considered how natural it 
would be t<i conclude lubeequently from the importance of 

a historic personality that his conception or birth must have 
been connected with the peculiar and rarely occurring posi- 
tion of the planets. 1 There are minor difficulties, such as 

the too short period between conception and birth, the too 
long journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and the compu- 
tation of the regnal yean of Augustus. But these are of 
little consequence compared with the tremendous strain 
upon modern intelligence of the assumption that there 
really is a relation between the conception of a human 
being upon the earth and the greater or shorter distance be- 
n some of the planets in the sky. 
In all probability, a Hellenistic Jew or a CJentile con- 
verted to Christianity toward the end of the first century 
was led by his knowledge of the conjunrtio maxima in 6 
B. C. to suppose that Jesus was born under those auspicious 
planetary influences, and to conclude that astrologers in 
the East must have seen his star (Jupiter near Saturn in 
Aries) and naturally come to worship him. That Magi 
1 This was clearly done in the case of Alexander. 



246 THE PROPHET OF XAZAEETH 

from the rising sun might thus have journeyed far to pay 
divine homage to a great king, had been seen in the case of 
Tiridates and the Magi in his company, who in 66 A. D. had 
gone through Asia Minor to Rome to prostrate themselves 
before Nero, addressing him as a god. 1 An influence upon 
the legend from this source was suggested by Dieter ich 2 and 
has been deemed probable by Usener 3 and Pfleiderer. 4 
Thus understood, it sets forth in impressive symbolism the 
conversion of the Mithras-worshiping world to nity, 

the adoration of the new-born king of the .1 'he Magi, 

in contrast with the attitude of his own people who. th 
in possession of the prophetic word, refined to do him honor. 
The story clearly indicates that it was the prophecy of 
Micah 5 which rendered it iKfif IRIJ to believe that as the 
Messiah he must have been born m Bethlehem. The Beth- 
lehem meant is onqnestionsbly the well known town in 
Judah where David was Bnppofl been born. 

Cheyne 6 thinks of Bethlehem noeertyya, or isrijfys, in 
Zebulon, 7 miles X. \Y. of Nazareth, a place mentioned in 
the Talmud. 7 But it n red that this Bethlehem is 

only referred to in the birth-stories and 
nected with David. At I 

lehem in Judah v, rded as the birth-place of Da 

Only in recent times the accuracy of this tradition has been 
questioned. 8 Modern criticism is making Bethlehem I 
' ' little among the thousands of Judah," no longer to be hon- 

'b Dio Cassius, LXTIT. 2 f. 

*Zeitschrift fiir die neutcstamentliche Wisscnschaft, 1902, p. 1 ff. 

« Ibid., 1903, p. 19. 

4 Das Christ usbild des urchristlichcn Glaul> p. 101. How 

far the star of Jacob in Numbers, xxiv, 17, influenced the legend, is 
difficult to say. Pfleiderer has also suggested Isaiah, \x, 1 ff., where 
the breaking forth of Yahwe's light is followed by the coming of 
the Sabaeans with gifts of gold ami frankincense (Das Urchr. 
turn, 2nd ed., 1902, p. 552 f.). 

•Matth., ii, 6; Mieah, v, 1. 

6 Encyclopaedia Biblica, III, 3360 ff. 

7 Meg ilia, 70a. 

"Marquart, Fundamente israditischer und judischer GesckicXte, 
1896, p. 23 ff. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 247 

ored as the birth-place either of David or of Jesus. The 
massacre of the infants is inextricably interwoven with the 
visit of the astrologers from the East. Josephus records 
many a crime committed by Herod, but he knew nothing of 
such a deed. This silence remains strange, even when due 
weight is given to the reasoning of J. C. Vollborth 1 who 
called attention to the fact that Bethlehem cannot have had 
more than about a thousand inhabitants, so that the number 
of male children under two years of age is not likely to have 
exceeded a dozen. Far reaching conclusions have been 
drawn from Matthew's account of the flight to Egypt. 
Rabbis reported in the Talmud supposed that Jesus learned 
in Egypt forbidden magic, 1 and modern writers have 
thought that he acquired the wisdom of the Egyptians. 
The evangelist clearly indicates the source of this story. 
The flight was invented "thai it might be fulfilled which 
was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, ' ' Out 
of Egypt I have called my son."' It is unknown to Luke. 
Instead of a visit by Magi, this evangelist narrates the com- 
ing of shepherds to Bethlehem, who have been informed by 
angels that "a Saviour, who is Christ, the Lord, has been 
born in the city of David." 4 And from Bethlehem he lets 
the holy family go, not to Egypt, but to Jerusalem and 
thence "to their own city Nazareth." 1 

At the root of the various Bethlehem legends lies the con- 
viction that Jesus must have been a true descendant of 
David. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke 7 bear wit- 
ness to this conviction. Both profess to give the pedigree 
of Joseph. One goes back to Abraham, the other to Adam; 
one runs through the royal line, the other follows a side 

1 In Matth., ii, 16, 1788, summarized by Eichhorn in Allgemeine 
Bibliothek, 1789, p. 356 ff. 

2 Cf. e. g. Shabbath, 104b; Sanhedrin, 107b; Sota, 47a; pal. Shab- 
bath, 14. So also the Jewish informants of Celsus. 

8 Matth., ii, 14 ; Rosea, xi, 1. 

* Luke, ii, 8 ff. 

6 Luke, ii, 39. 

• I, 1-17. 

7 III, 23-38. 



248 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

branch ; one omits certain links to make the chain consist of 
three equal parts, the other adds links not found in the Old 
Testament. Both depend on the Greek version for the 
earlier period, and apparently upon some books akin to the 
Chronicles for some of the later names. Curiously enough, 
Shealtiel is the son of Jeconiah in Matthew, the son of Neri 
in Luke; Joseph descends from David's son Solomon and 
Zerubbabel's son Abiud in Matthew, from David's 
Nathan and Zerubbabel's son Rhesa in Luke, and neither 
Abiud nor Rhesa are mentioned among the sons of Zerub- 
babel in Chronicles ; in fact, Joseph 's own father is Jacob in 
Matthew and Heli in Luke. The phrases "of Tamar" in 
vs 3, "of Rahab" and "of Ruth" in vs 5, and "of her that 
had been the wife of Uriah ' ' in vs 6, are probably late addi- 
tions by some one who desired to emphasize the contrast be- 
tween the Davidic lineage of Jesus' putative father, with 
its undeniable taints, and the pure and spotless paternity 
of Jesus. The incomplete, contradictory and mutually ex- 
clusive genealogies only show that Jesus' grandfather was 
not known in early Christian circles. But while they do not 
prove the Davidic descent of Jesus, they are of great value 
in revealing the earliest tradition as to his immediate pater- 
nity. It was recognized long ago that no man could have 
undertaken to prove by the pedigree of Joseph the Davidic 
descent of Jesus who did not believe that Jesus was the son 
of Joseph. But this remained a critical conjecture until the 
discovery of the Sinaitic Syriac palimpsest. This version, 
made from a Greek text older than any we possess to-day, 
as is universally admitted, reads in Matth. i, 16, "Joseph 
begat Jesus." Some manuscripts of the old Latin version 
point to the same text. 1 

This is indeed out of harmony with the story of the virgin 
birth, as the contradiction to it given in verse 18 at once 
evinces, but the section containing it is clearly a later inser- 
tion. The profound influence of non-Jewish thought upon 

x The fullest discussion of the passage will be found in Adalbert 
Merx, Das Evangelium Matthneus nach der Syrischen im Sinaiklostcr 
gefundenen Palimpsesthandschrift, 1902, p. 5 ff. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 2.49 

the author of Matth. i, 18-ii, 23 cannot be denied. In the 
Graeco-Roman world the idea of a divine paternity was ex- 
ceedingly common. Pythagoras was supposed to be a son 
of Apollo and Parthenis, Plato a son of Apollo and Perik- 
tione, Alexander a son of Amon Re or Zeus and Olympias, 
Seleucus a son of Apollo and Laodice, Augustus a son of 
Jupiter and Attia, Apollonius of Tyana a son of Zeus and 
a woman, and Simon Magus a son of the Most High and a 
virgin, to mention only a few examples among many. 1 In 
early Israel similar notions occur, as Gen. vi, 1 ff. and other 
passages show. But in later Judaism they seem to have dis- 
appeared except where contact with Greek thought is mani- 
fest, as in the case of Philo. According to him, Samuel 
was "born of a human mother " who "became pregnant 
after receiving divine seed;" 2 Zipporah was found by 
Moses "pregnant by no mortal;" 3 Tamar was "pregnant 
through divine seed;" 4 and Isaac was "not the result of 
generation but the shaping of the unbegotten. " 5 This 
shows that even profound thinkers among the Hellenistic 
Jews occupied themselves with parthenogenetic speculations. 
Whether the wrong translation of 'almah in Isaiah vii, 14 
as "virgin" instead of as "young woman" contributed to 
the development of the doctrine of the virgin birth or was a 
welcome proof from the Scriptures of an already formed 
conviction, cannot be determined. But the author of the 
story may very well have been a Christian Jew. His fa- 
miliarity with the Jewish law of betrothal speaks in favor of 
this view. 

Originally, the account in Luke presented Mary as the 
wife of Joseph, accompanying her husband to Bethlehem, 
there giving birth to her first-born son with him, and stop- 
ping on the way home in Jerusalem after they had both been 

1 Cf . Usener, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 1898, p. 70 ff. 
2 1, 273, ed. Mangey. 
3 1, 147. 
4 1, 598. 
6 1, 215. 



250 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 



purified. Hillman 1 has convincingly shown that when the 
interpolated verses i, 34, 35 and the gloss "as was sup- 
posed ' ' in iii, 23 have been removed, there is not the slight- 
est intimation of a virgin birth in the text, but weighty evi- 
dence that the author can have had no such miracle in 
mind. 2 This disposes of the various attempts by Jewish 
rabbis and modern scholars to discover the real paternity 
of Jesus, as well as of the fiction of an immaculate concep- 
tion. The currents of human life that united in the person- 
ality of Jesus bore through hidden channels from sources 
lost to view the strength and weakness of the race. To 
regard them as common and unclean was a serious de- 
parture from the spirit of Jesus that avenged itself by cast- 
ing the shadow of a wholly undeserved suspicion on the 
humble family of Nazareth. 3 

1 Jahroucher fur protestantische Theologie, X VII, 1891, 192 ff . 

3 Luke, i, 5-25, 41b, 46-55, 57-80, seems to have been drawn from a 
work originating among the disciples of John the Baptist. The Mag- 
nificat was originally put upon the lips of Elizabeth, as Volter has 
shown. (Theologisch Tijdsehrift, 1896, p. 244 ff.). Harnack has 
called attention to the fact that both " Elizabeth ' ' and "Mary" in 
vs. 46 are late {Sitzungsoerichte der Berliner ATcademie der Wissen- 
schaften, 1900, p. 538 ff.), which would give the psalm to Elizabeth. 
The psalm is an imitation of that ascribed to Hanna, but signifi- 
cantly omits the supposed Messianic reference, and speaks of a "hu- 
miliation' ' of the Lord's handmaiden, appropriate in the case of 
Elizabeth, but not applicable to Mary. The legends concerning 
Hanna and Symeon are clearly of late origin. 

3 The story that Jesus was the son of a soldier by the name of 
Panthera was known already to Celsus in 178 A. D. (Origen, Contra 
Celsum, I, 32), and is frequently repeated in the Babylonian and 
Palestinian Talmuds. (See the original texts in Dalman, Was sagt 
der Talmud iiber Jesum, 1891). Panthera is probably a Greek ana- 
gram on the word Par thenos- Virgin, Bar Panthera thus playfully 
hinting at the "Son of the Virgin." Later Panthera was made the 
name of the alleged seducer of Mary. This anagram was suggested 
by P. Cassel in 1878 in his Commentary on Esther (Eng. tr., p. 336), 
and by J. Bendel Harris, The Apology of Aristides in Texts and 
Studies, Cambridge, 1893, p. 25. The name Panther also occurs in 
Christian genealogies of Jesus; cf. Epiphanius, Eaer., lxxviii, 7, but 
this probably is an attempted rehabilitation of Panthera. Ben-Sotada 
is generally explained "Son of this woman suspected of adultery,' ■ 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 251. 

Concerning the early life of Jesus little is known. He 
may have been about twelve years of age when, in 6 A. D., 
the census of Quirinius caused an insurrection headed by 
the Galilean, Judas of Gamala in Gaulanitis, and it is not 
improbable that his youthful mind was already impressed 
with the weighty issues that were involved. About the 
same time he may have made his first pilgrimage to Jeru- 
salem and seen for the first time animal sacrifices offered to 
Tahwe. If he asked any questions of the priests or the 
elders in the temple, they are likely to have concerned the 
sacrificial cult. 1 The child is the father of the man. From 
Mark vi, 3 ff. it is safe to conclude that Jesus was a carpen- 
ter and house-builder. This passage also shows that the 

though this explanation is open to doubt. In modern times many 
writers have sought to account for the general characteristics of Jesus 
and his peculiar attitude to priests, scribes and Pharisees as well as 
to his mother and brothers by his supposed illegitimate birth. But 
the suspicion of illegitimacy is only a corollary of the late doctrine of 
a virgin birth. It is time that historic criticism should put an end to 
these groundless aspersions against the parents of Jesus with the 
survivals of pagan mythology that gave occasion to them. The car- 
penter of Nazareth and his good wife need no apology for giving to 
the world, as the fruits of tender and loyal affection, their first born 
son and his less distinguished brothers and sisters. But the Church 
in its maturity should seek to repair the injury done unwittingly by 
the Church in its childhood to this worthy couple, and to all sound 
family life, by the myths concerning the origin of Jesus. 

1 The nucleus of the story, Luke, ii, 41-51, belongs to the older 
stratum of tradition, as is clear from the modest role of Jesus, listen- 
ing to the teachers and asking them questions, and from Mary's 
words, "Thy father and I were seeking thee. " But the answer of 
Jesus, "How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be 
about my Father's business ?" is as clearly secondary. In his anxiety 
to mark the contrast between "thy father' ' and "my Father," the 
author has put upon the lips of Jesus a wholly unwarranted rebuke of 
his parents. Why should they not seek him? Whether we interpret 
"my Father's business" or "my Father's house," there is no ques- 
tion here of a conflict of duties to God and to parents, but rather a 
suggestion of that tendency to set aside manifest moral duties on a 
religious pretext, which Jesus himself so severely criticised in later 
life. 



252 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

trade cannot have been merely a rabbi's avocation. 1 The 
astonishment of his neighbors is too genuine, and their 
knowledge concerning his outward career too reliable, to 
permit the idea that Jesus had been trained as a rabbi. The 
whole character of his teaching precludes the assumption. 
There is nothing to suggest that he had ever appeared as a 
teacher before his contact with John the Baptist. But 
there can be no doubt that the many years during which he 
quietly worked at his trade witnessed the growth of his 
moral and religious character and the development of his 
peculiar views of life. What the shaping influences were, 
cannot be determined with certainty. His later conduct 
and teaching suggest, however, that he learned more from 
observation of nature, intercourse with men, and com- 
munion with God, than from books. In the synagogue of 
Nazareth, Moses and the Prophets were read in the Hebrew, 
and probably a methurgeman interpreted in the Galilean 
dialect of the Aramaic the sections read. The prophetic 
books seem to have left a deeper impression on Jesus than 
the Law. If hj[s home possessed any of these revered writ- 
ings, it is likely that prophets and psalms were his favorite 
reading. 2 From the great prophets of his people he learned 
how freely men of the spirit had criticised what he supposed 

1 So apparently Brandt, who thinks that Jesus went through the 
school af Pharisaic Biblical erudition and thus became a rabbi, and 
who attaches much value to a Eabbinic decision handed down from 
Jesus the Galilean through an unknown disciple, Jacob of Kefar 
Sekanyah, to Eabbi Eliezer and quoted in Aboda Zara, 16b, 17a 
(Evangelische Geschichte, 1893, p. 449 ff.). 

2 There is no reason to doubt that he knew how to read and to 
write. An opportunity to acquire such knowledge was probably 
offered in the synagogue. Josephus seems to indicate that (Contra 
Apionem, II, 204), and the Mishna clearly shows it to have been the 
case in the second century A. D. (Shabbath, I, 3.) While all par- 
ents may not have given their children the advantage of such instruc- 
tion, and it is difficult to determine how far the conditions of Judaea 
prevailed also in a small Galilean town in the first years of our era, 
it is safe to assume that a promising child was given the oppor- 
tunity, or an intelligent young man was able to secure for himself a 
chance, of acquiring these elements of education. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 253 

to be Mosaic institutions, how strongly they had emphasized 
their conviction that God desired righteousness and not sac- 
rifices, how strenuously they had opposed the resort to 
chariots and horses and urged a quiet reliance on the arm 
of God, and how constantly they had peered into the future 
for the signs of the great day of the Lord. Their influence 
upon him is unmistakable. On the other hand, his sayings 
do not reveal to what extent he was familiar with such wis- 
dom-books as Job, Ecclesiasticus, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, 
or whether he was at all acquainted with such works as the 
Psalms of Solomon, the earlier parts of Enoch, and Jubilees. 
Both his daily occupation and his bent of mind tended to 
give him a livelier interest in the vital issues presented by 
the prophets than in the legal questions absorbing the atten- 
tion of the rabbis, and to send him in leisure moments to the 
fountain-heads of inspiration and instruction rather than to 
the best cisterns. He was a sympathetic and thoughtful ob- 
server of nature. Revelations of deep significance came to 
him through rain and sunshine, land and sea, trees and 
flowers, birds and beasts. References to natural objects 
and phenomena are as frequent in his reported utterances 
as they are conspicuously absent in the rabbinic discussions 
of the Talmud, or the epistolary literature of the New Testa- 
ment. His observation of human nature was keen rather 
than broad. He learned much from contact with men, even 
though his acquaintance was limited by the circumstances of 
his life. His disregard of conventional standards of judg- 
ment led him to put his own valuation upon the characters 
of men, their words and deeds. His half wondering, half 
reproachful question, " Judge ye not of yourselves what is 
right V reveals a fundamental principle of his mental proc- 
esses. He seems to have judged men by the manner in 
which they affected him more than by an impartial scrutiny 
of their actions, a nice balancing of merits and demerits, 
and a gradual approach to an adequate estimate by observa- 
tion from many view-points. In this he was a son of the 
prophets, and of his race. The men with whom he came in 
contact were Hebrews, not Greeks. If in the fragmentary 



254 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

record he seems to hurl his woes indiscriminately against 
whole classes, not only holding those responsible for enter- 
ing in who had the keys, or demanding much of those to 
whom much had been given, but apparently failing to recog- 
nize the sincerity of those whose conservatism kept them in 
the beaten paths and condemning as hypocrites and thieves 
the entire body of religious leaders, the noblest men of his 
people had done the same before his time. It is probable 
that personal experiences and associations had a determin- 
ing influence. He was a carpenter, as his father had been. 
His associates were humble folk, artisans, small trades- 
I people, tillers of the soil, fishermen. Grinding poverty, 
bootless labor, anxious care for the morrow, constant suffer- 
ing from the pride, the greed and the lust of the well-to-do 
classes, discontent with the Roman yoke, the Idumaean 
dynasty and the heavy burdens of taxation, envy and dis- 
trust of the rich, the cultured and the respectable, were 
characteristic features of his social environment. To as- 
sume that Jesus had a certain class consciousness is not as- 
cribing to him a distinctly modern sentiment. A man can- 
not have spent most of his life at a carpenter's bench and 
in a carpenter's home without looking out upon the world 
through a carpenter's eyes. Jesus could not have left his 
trade at the mature age of thirty without carrying with him 
a sympathy for the little ones, the needy, the oppressed and 
the outcast, and an understanding of their lot and character 
not. so natural to men brought up in surroundings of afflu- 
ence and social distinction. 

It is difficult to determine how far the views of Jesus may 
have been influenced by the opinions of men with whom he 
was thrown into contact before the appearance of John the 
Baptist. It has been suggested that he may have been a 
member of a local Essene cult-community. This is, indeed, 
highly improbable. Even if such a brotherhood existed in 
the little Galilean town, it is not likely that Jesus was at any 
time sufficiently attracted by its principles and mode of life 
to identify himself with it. It seems improbable that, with 
his temper and in his circumstances, the anxious observance 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 255 

of ceremonies, tabus, and sacred days, characteristic of the 
Essenes, could have appealed to him, or that he would have 
been willing to pledge himself to unquestioning obedience to 
superiors. 1 Nevertheless there was much in Essenism that 
must have found a ready response in his heart, if he was 
acquainted with it, and much in his own teaching and life 
that is most naturally explained by the supposition that he 
knew and was influenced by it. If he was familiar with the 
Essenes, he must have been favorably impressed with their 
simplicity of life, opposition to private wealth, contentment 
with their lot, kindness to the poor, disapproval of slavery, 
non-resistance of evil, healing of the sick, preference for 
celibacy, rejection of animal sacrifices, objection to oaths, 
reverent contemplation of nature, occupation with things to 
come and idea of a spiritual resurrection. 2 It can scarcely 
be an accident that so many of his own great convictions are 
also found among their leading tenets. Particularly impor- 

1 The tendency to allegorizing with which the Essenes are credited 
must also have seemed to him unnatural. How far this penchant as 
well as some of the Essene tenets were due to the direct influence of 
Greek thought, is difficult to determine. If Zeller went somewhat too 
far in this direction by making Essenism a mere reflection of 
Pythagoreanism, Lucius, on the other hand, erred by denying any re- 
lation and regarding Essenism as nothing but an exaggerated form of 
Pharisaism. Greek and Oriental speculation met in Essenism as in 
Pythagoreanism. 

2 Hilgenf eld is right in calling attention to the sporadic opposition 
in ancient Israel to the sacrificial system and the temple cult. In 
view of utterances by pre-exilic prophets, Ps., 1, Isa., lxv, and other 
passages, Ohle's contention (Jdhrbiicher fur prot. Theologie, 1887 
and 1888) that the rejection of animal sacrifices proves that the 
Essenes cannot have been Jews, that therefore the Jewish sect de- 
scribed under this name by Philo and Josephus never existed, lacks 
all plausibility. Hilgenfeld believes the accounts, but also explains 
the Essenes as an originally non-Jewish tribe, whose existence goes 
back to pre-exilic times. Josephus is probably right in assuming that 
the Essenes came into existence as a party in the middle of the second 
century. Opposition to the illegitimate high-priesthood may have oc- 
casioned the forming of a party. Oriental (Indian and Persian) in- 
fluences came later. The Greek influence may have come, either from 
Alexandria, where the Therapeutae lived, or from the Greek Deeapo- 
lis. 



256 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

tant is his attitude on questions where the Essenes differed 
radically from the Pharisees. The latter believed in the 
principle of retaliation sanctioned by the law, in the bearing 
of arms, in the taking of oaths, in marriage and divorce, in 
the offering of animal sacrifices, and in the resurrection oi 
the flesh on the last day. The views of Jesus on these point? 
seem to have been either identical with or akin to those of the 
Essenes. His opposition to the legal principle of retalia- 
tion, and his insistence on the principle of overcoming evil 
with good were even more marked than those of the Es- 
senes. Like them he rejected the oath. He remained 
unmarried. He seems to have commended celibacy, though 
recognizing the temporary value of marriage when kept 
indissoluble and without the possibility of divorce. He 
ignored the sacrificial system, or advised men to dispense 
with the proper performance of sacrificial acts in the inter- 
est of morality. Concerning the resurrection he seems to 
have believed, with the Essenes, that the good are raised 
immediately after death and continue to live with God in a 
form of existence like that of the angels, without sharing 
their belief in the preexistence of the soul, the inherent evil 
of matter, and the survival of all souls. How far Essene 
thought affected Jewish society, even where there was no 
organized body of believers, is impossible to know. But the 
overlapping of different spheres of influence is a constantly 
observed fact. As the young Josephus seeking for the truth 
found a Banus, who cannot be affirmed to have been an Efr 
sene, but apparently stood religiously very near this body, 
so Jesus in his youth may have met some unknown teacher 
whose influence in some direction was as determining as 
that of John the Baptist later. 

The word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in 
the wilderness in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. 1 There is 

1 Luke, iii, 1. Where the home of Zechariah and Elizabeth was is 
not known. The tradition that places it at 4 Ain Karim does not go 
beyond the twelfth century. Cheyne (article, John the Baptist in 
Encyclopaedia Biblica) conjectures that ' Ain Karim is intended by 
"Aenon, near Salim," i. e., Jerusalem, in John, iii, 23. But what 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 257 

no valid ground for questioning the substantial accuracy of 
this statement of Luke. A number of arguments have been 
urged against its trustworthiness, such as the unquestion- 
able inaccuracies of the immediate context, the report of 
Josephus that men looked upon Herod's defeat by Aretas as 
the judgment of heaven upon him for the murder of John 
the Baptist, which therefore could not have occurred a very 
long time before, and the apparently necessary close con- 
nection in time between the death of John, the divorce of 
"Aretas 's daughter, and the war of Aretas upon Herod. 
But Volkmar 1 is probably right in thinking that the journey 
of Herod Antipas to Home on which he became enamoured 
of Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Boethus, was 
undertaken early in the year 29 A. D. to offer con- 
dolences on the death of Julia Livia, to ingratiate himself 
with Sejanus, and to explain his conduct in the case of 
John, which might have, given Pilate cause for complaint. 
This scholar probably also divined the truth, when he main- 
tained that John the Baptist was imprisoned and some time 
later put to death in the fortress of Machaerus, then belong- 
ing to Herod's father-in-law Aretas, before Herod's journey 
to Rome and his marriage to Herodias. Josephus 2 was 
familiar with the story of John, his baptism, and the polit- 
ical excitement caused by his appearance, but he knew 

kind of baptism could John have performed there? The phrase 
"because there was much water there" seems to indicate that the 
author thought of a good-sized stream. At Tell Nimrim, northeast 
of Jericho, which Cheyne regards as the place intended by Bethabara 
or Bethany ("beyond the Jordan' ' being considered as a gloss) 
there is at least such a stream. The Onomasticon of Eusebius gives 
us no real help. It is not improbable that John's home was some- 
where near the Dead Sea or the Jordan, where Essenes and other 
Baptist sects seem to have flourished. 

1 See especially Jesus Nazarenus, 1882, p. 369 ff. 

2 Ant., xviii, 109 ff . There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of 
this passage. Had it been inserted by a Christian, he would not have 
forgotten the dramatic incidents of the gospels and ascribed a pe- 
culiar political character to John's career. 

17 



258 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

nothing about his having rebuked Herod for marrying the 
divorced wife of his brother. 1 

But while John's career was apparently ended before 
Herod Antipas had offended the zealots for the Law by 
marrying, contrary to Lev. xviii, 16, a woman who had been 
his brother's wife, 2 the death of the popular prophet was 
laid to his charge by many who possibly cared less about 
the chagrin of a foreign princess or even the degrees of mar- 

1 It is no longer quite as certain as it seemed in the days of Volk- 
mar that Machaerus at the time belonged to Aretas. Niese, in his 
edition, has shown that the present manuscripts do not read tote, 
"then," but to te, which probably favors the following translation: 
"She, however, had already before sent a message to Machaerus and 
to the (district) tributary to her father, and everything had been 
prepared for the journey by the general." This is supposed by 
Schiirer (Geschichte, 3rd ed., 1901, Vol. I, p. 436) to mean that she 
sent word both to the fortress belonging to Herod, from whom she 
fled, and to the adjoining territory belonging to her father. But 
the connection between Machaerus and "the subject to her father" 
is too close to permit the thought of two different messages to offi- 
cers of different governments, and the construction of a dative follow- 
ing a preposition with accusative is harsh. If this was the original 
text, it is more natural to suppose the meaning to be that she sent 
to Machaerus and the subordinate (masc.) of her father, the com- 
mander of the fortress. But it is difficult to believe that all the 
earlier editors of Josephus recorded the more natural reading without 
any manuscript authority. An editio princeps is often as good as a 
manuscript. 

2 It has long been recognized that Matthew made a mistake when 
he declared that Herodias was the wife of Philip (xiv, 3). Mark 
repeated the error (vi, 17). Luke, acquainted with Josephus, avoided 
it (iii, 19, 20) and spoke only of Herod's brother. Herodias was the 
wife of Herod Boethus, who lived in privacy in Jerusalem. Their 
daughter was Salome, who afterwards became the wife of Philip. 
The story of her dancing before Herod and being instigated by her 
mother to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a charger, which 
was reluctantly given to her by Herod on account of his promise to 
grant her anything "to the half of his kingdom," is generally ac- 
knowledged to be legendary. The historical Antipas "had no king- 
dom to divide" (Holtzmann). Herodias, considering her family an 
exceptionally good woman, had no grievance against John. Christian 
exegetes forget that bigamy was no crime according to the Jewish 
law. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 259 

riage forbidden in the Law, and it was this martyrdom of 
John that was remembered when he was defeated by Aretas, 
rather than the humiliation of Aretas 's daughter. That 
some time passed between the flight of the Nabataean 
princess and the war that ended so disastrously for Herod, 
is evident from the narrative of Josephus which mentions 
boundary disputes. It should also be observed that Aretas 
scarcely had any grievance against Herod because of his 
marrying an additional wife, while Herod might have had 
cause for complaint in the disappearance of his Arabian 
queen. There is no necessary connection between the death 
of John in 28 or early in 29 A. D., the marriage of Herod 
to Herodias on his return from Rome in 29 A. D., and the 
great victory of Aretas in 36 A. D. Seven years is not too 
long a period for men to remember a prophet in whose 
light they have rejoiced to walk, and the memory of the 
martyred prophet is especially long-lived, even though the 
year and day may not be accurately recalled. 

If John appeared in 28 A. D. and was imprisoned and put 
to death before Herod's departure for Rome in 29 A. D., 
it was probably some time early in the latter year that Jesus 
came to listen to his preaching. The Gospel according to 
the Hebrews 1 seems to have recorded that his mother and 
brothers urged Jesus to go with them to be baptized by John. 
He at first objected on the ground that he was not con- 
scious of any sin, but afterwards changed his mind, consid- 
ering that this assertion may itself have been a sin. It is 
not impossible that this story has preserved the memory of 
two facts : that the whole family was moved by the account 
of John's preaching to go to the Jordan, and that Jesus at 
first objected to the ceremony of immersion and the osten- 
tatious confession of sin. This would be in harmony with 
his later attitude. Oscar Holtzmann 2 accepts the whole 
story on the ground that it could not have been invented by 
those who believed in the absolute sinlessness of Jesus. 

1 Jerome, Contra Pelagium, iii, 2; Cyprian, Be rebaptismate, xvii. 
From this gospel the passage found its way into the Predicatio Pauli, 

2 Leben Jesu, 1901, p. 93 f . 



260 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH 

This is indeed true, but hardly conclusive. The narrative 
appears to be early, without being wholly reliable. The 
motives that led Jesus to go were no doubt his desire to hear 
the words of a living prophet and his eagerness for every 
sign of the coming of the kingdom of heaven. It is a 
precious indication of his faith that he did not regard 
prophecy as a thing of the past but was ready to hear the 
word of God from the lips of one of his own contemporaries. 
When he saw the stern prophet of the desert, with his un- 
shorn hair and his leathern girdle, and heard his fierce de- 
nunciation of the mighty and the wise in their own conceit, 
and his earnest demand for righteousness of conduct, the 
prophets whose words he had read seemed less great. The 
first impression must have been overpowering. Even later, 
when he had learned to discount the value of this message 
and was himself proclaiming an ideal higher than any that 
John ever dreamed of, he continued to regard the Baptist 
as the greatest of all prophets. It is uncertain whether 
John immersed others in the Jordan, or set an example of 
immersing himself in its waters. 1 In any case, the act was 
well understood to be something else than an ordinary wash- 
ing, to remove the uncleanness of the flesh. It was a sacred 
bath, symbolical of repentance and the desire to live a clean 
life. Hence he forbade some to come to his baptism who 
declared that, as sons of Abraham and members of the holy 
nation, they were acceptable to God, and who showed no 
fruits of repentance. Jesus appears to have submitted to 
the rite. Later tradition associated various miraculous 
features with the event. There was a fire; 2 the heavens 
were rent asunder ; a dove appeared ; this dove was the Holy 
Ghost ; a voice was heard by Jesus himself or by John ; the 
bath hoi proclaimed him to be the Messiah ; it said to him 

*The latter is the inference drawn from the title by Brandt, Evan- 
gelische Geschichte, 1893, p. 457 f . 

2 Justin seems to have read of a fire in his copy of Matthew, Dial, 
c. Tryph., Ixxxviii, 315, so also the Predicatio Pauli, the Gospel ace. to 
the Ebionites, quoted by Epiphanius, Adv. haer, xxx, 13, and old Latin 
versions. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 261 

' ' Thou art my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, ' ' or 
' 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," or "My 
Son, in all the prophets I expected thee, that thou shouldest 
come, and I should rest on thee ; for thou art my rest, thou 
art my only begotten Son, who reigneth for ever;" 1 or it 
said of him, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well 
pleased." The Baptist was represented as hesitating, feel- 
ing that it would be more appropriate for him to be bap- 
tized by Jesus, whom he recognized as the Messiah, than the 
reverse, but was graciously reminded that ' ' Thus it behooves 
us to fulfil all righteousness. ' ' This is clearly a secondary 
thought. It is manifest from John's later message 2 to 
Jesus that nothing of this kind had actually happened, and 
that the thought of Jesus possibly being the Messiah did not 
come to him until he began to receive reports of the public 
ministry of the latter. That Jesus in the water had an 
ecstatic vision which convinced him that he was the Messiah, 
is supposed by some critics. But there is no indication that 
he was a visionary, no ground for assuming that he regarded 
himself as the Messiah, and no justification for such a con- 
struction of the vacillating and mutually exclusive tradi- 
tions. Nevertheless, the event had unquestionably a de- 
cisive influence on his future. He had identified himself 
with the prophetic movement. How long he remained with 
John, we do not know. The period must have been com- 
paratively short, as the Baptist's career was soon cut off by 
his arrest. Antipas was apparently forced by political con- 
siderations to interfere. As the cry arose on every side, 
' ' The kingdom of heaven is at hand ! " he had good reason 
to fear an intervention by the Romans similar to that which 
twenty-three years before had deprived his brother Arche- 
laus of Judaea and Samaria. 

The arrest of John was an unmistakable call to Jesus to 
take up his work. It is probable that the news reached him 
in Galilee. If so, he seems to have left the Baptist, either 
as a propagandist, or from a growing sense of disappoint- 

1 Gospel ace. to the Hebrews, Jerome, Com. in Isaiam, xi, 2. 
z Matth., xi, 2ff. 



262 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

ment, or to wait for further providential leading. There 
is a tradition that he was carried by the Spirit to the desert 
to be tempted by the devil. 1 Possibly it might be inferred 
from this that he sought solitude for meditation, and that 
his residence for some time was unknown to his relatives 
and remained so to his disciples. Matthew, Luke, and the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews give in different order and 
different language accounts of the Satanic temptations that 
assailed him. He was tempted to satisfy his hunger by 
making bread out of stones, to cast himself from the pin- 
nacles of the temple and to fly in the air, and to fall down 
and worship the devil in order to obtain all the kingdoms 
of the world which he saw from an exceedingly high moun- 
tain. There is of course, no more reason to believe that 
Jesus was seriously troubled by desires to turn stones into 
bread, to soar above the earth before gaping crowds, or to 
rule as an emperor even at the cost of worshiping the devil, 
than that he actually was carried through the air by the 
devil to the roof of the temple, or to a mountain so high 
that from its peak he could see round the globe. The orig- 
inal impulse to such narratives may have been the saying of 
Jesus recorded in Luke xxii, 28. They seem to typify the 
sort of temptations supposed to assail the Messiah. The 
devil was supposed to find the material for his temptations 
in Messianic prophecies, and Jesus was supposed to have 
overcome them by falling back upon passages in the Scrip- 
tures relating to man's duty. "Man shall not live by bread 
alone ;" "man must not tempt the Lord, his God ; man must 
worship God alone and serve him." These were indeed 
pivotal thoughts with Jesus. Such words may have been 
heard from his own lips. In harmony with them his life 
had been lived. It had not been dominated by selfish con- 
siderations ; it had been marked by patient endurance of the 
evils of the day ; it had been sustained by the good message 
that came from above. His sensitive soul had shrunk from 
the presumption of testing how far God might go in helping 
him to perform miracles ; he had learned to distinguish be- 
1 Matth., iv, 1-11 ; Luke, iv, 1-13. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 



tween the sympathetic ministry of healing, whatever his 
views may have been as to the source of disease, and the 
faithless faith that seeks to lean upon an Almighty Power 
in undertaking sensational, unprofitable and impossible 
tasks. He had understood the essential impiety of all polit- 
ical autocracy, and had shown no more desire to become a 
king of the Jews or an emperor of the world than to become 
a devil-worshiper. 

All the Synoptic gospels record that Jesus went about in 
Galilee proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of heaven 
before he made Capernaum the center of his activity. But 
only Luke 1 has the story of his preaching in the synagogue 
of Nazareth and his being driven out of the town. Such an 
announcement in Nazareth that the acceptable year of the 
Lord had at length come, and that the fulfilment of the Old 
Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah were now to 
be expected, no doubt seemed to the evangelist an appro- 
priate beginning of Jesus' ministry. He was unable, how- 
ever, to carry out the scene without betraying its unhis- 
torical character by the allusion to the great works already 
done in Capernaum, the premature rejection of Israel and 
choice of the Gentiles, his escape by a miracle, and other- 
wise. Some of the sayings may have been uttered by him 
at a later time. Walking along the sea of Galilee Jesus be- 
came acquainted with two brothers, Simon also called Peter, 
and Andrew, and they followed him. They also seem to 
have offered him the hospitality of their home in Caper- 
naum. 2 Two other brothers, John and James, sons of Zebe- 
dee, soon after became his disciples. At Capernaum Jesus 
spoke in a synagogue. What he preached was not that the 
Messiah had come, and that he was the Messiah, but that the 
kingdom of heaven was at hand. God would reign over 
men and make them happy; let them therefore turn away 

1 IV, 16-30. 

"Possibly Tell Hum where ruins of a synagogue exist. But "the 
fountain called Kapharnaum ' ' (Josephus, Bell. jud. Ill, 519 f), was 
in the plain El Ghuweir, either Ain Tabighah, or, more probably, 
Ain Mudhawarah. The ruins of an acqueduet do not prove that tho 
district Tell Hum bore the same name. 



264 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

from their sinful, selfish ways, and accept in glad confi- 
dence the message of good things to come. The apocalyptic 
literature clearly shows that without speculating on any 
Messiah many minds occupied themselves in Israel with 
this thought of a perfectly realized theocracy, a new order 
of things to be ushered in by God. God himself was to be 
the king. But there were also those who looked eagerly for 
an occupant of the throne of David and a conqueror of the 
heathen nations. It is not impossible that this dream of 
vengeance and the pomp of empire unbalanced some minds, 
or caused an excitement so violent as to suggest demoniac 
possession. If there is a basis of fact in the narratives of 
demons who recognized Jesus as the Messiah, it may have 
been the exclamation of some such person. It is not impos- 
sible that an instance of this kind led to the theory that the 
demons, because of their superhuman knowledge, possessed 
the secret of his identity. But it would be quite hazardous 
to assume that the exact language of such ravings has been 
preserved, and Mark is so clearly under the influence of his 
theory that any such utterance is subject to doubt. 

In the Synoptic gospels Jesus appears not only as a 
preacher to whom at first the crowds gladly listened, but 
also as a physician by whom multitudes were healed from 
various diseases. Because some of his patients are de- 
scribed as possessed by demons, and the cures as being ef- 
fected by the casting out of these demons, and because the 
accounts have often savored of the miraculous, critics have 
at times cast doubts on all narratives of healing. In this 
they have probably been wrong. Jesus no doubt shared 
the common belief in demons, and the common explanation 
of some diseases as caused by temporary or permanent 
demoniacal possession. We may, if we choose, regard his 
diagnosis as faulty. There is no reason to doubt that he 
believed in exorcism. He freely recognized that the Phar- 
isees were able to cast out demons, 1 and he encouraged his 
own disciples to practise exorcism. We may reject the 

x Matth., xii, 27. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 265 

remedy with the explanation of the disease. But we have 
no right to question the occasional efficiency of this treat- 
ment. Granted the sincerity of belief on the part of physi- 
cian and patient alike, the earnest conviction that the evil 
can be overcome by the influence of a stronger and holier 
spirit, the firmness of will, the power of suggestion, the calm 
serenity of confidence, the quickening touch of sympathy; 
the result, particularly in the case of nervous disorders, is 
too well attested to admit of doubt. However erroneous the 
analysis may be, however mistaken the theory, however ab- 
surd the formulas, the psychic stimuli and sedatives, the 
subtle forces disturbing or restoring the equilibrium, may 
operate to the welfare of the organism. The physician may 
not himself be able to explain the source of his power. Es- 
pecially is this likely to be the case, if he has had no scientific 
education, but finds himself possessed of extraordinary skill 
and insight. Not every one was intended by nature to be a 
physician who had the advantages of a medical training, 
nor was everyone sent to the schools whom nature ordained 
to the healing ministry. This is true in every age. Jesus 
seems to have ascribed his power to a spirit, distinct from 
himself and working through him. 1 The best evidence that 
he actually wrought some cures is the early tradition, still 
preserved in our gospels, that he sometimes did not succeed 
at all, and at other times effected only a temporary improve- 
ment, the sufferer relapsing again into his former condition. 
But the great importance of this practical work supplement- 
ing his teaching lies in the disposition that led him to under- 
take it and the spirit in which he continued it. Actuated by 
sympathy, he served men freely, making his gift neither a 
source of revenue nor a stepping-stone to power. 

Jesus seems to have feared the outbursts of enthusiasm 
that greeted his words and deeds. He retired to solitary 
places, but the crowds sought and found him. He entered 

1 Matth., xii, 28. 



266 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

other towns, like Chorazin 1 and Bethsaida, 2 and people soon 
began to flock around him there. As his fame reached the 
prisoner in Machaerus, 3 John sent a message to him asking 
whether he was the Messiah or they should look for an- 
other. 4 Jesus called the attention of the messengers, in 
figures of speech borrowed from the Old Testament, to the 
spiritual revival they were witnessing, but said nothing 
about Messiahship. He neither desired that John should 
look upon him as a claimant for the throne of David, nor 
would he encourage him to go away from the manifest signs 
of God's presence in search for some aspirant to royal 
power. Soon after, John the Baptist was put to death. 
The agitation on behalf of the Baptist by his disciples, fol- 
lowing the manifest disavowal of Messianic claims by Jesus, 
may have determined Herod to take his life. Immediately 
upon this event, Herod seems to have undertaken his journey 
to Rome. On his way he visited his brother Herod Boethus 
in Jerusalem, and fell in love with Herodias. On his re- 
turn, she had secured a divorce, and he married her. Some 
people objected to the marriage, not on the ground that he 
had another wife, for that was lawful, nor because she was 
divorced, for that was permitted in the law, but on account 
of the legal prohibition against marrying a woman who had 
been a brother's wife. 5 It is interesting to observe that no 
censure on the part of Jesus has been recorded, though he 
did not hesitate to characterize the chief magistrate of his 
people as a "fox," 6 and he objected to bigamy and divorce 
as well. When Herod heard of Jesus, he is said to have 
expressed his belief that he was none else than John the 
Baptist raised from the dead. 7 Whether the words are actu- 
ally his or not, they show how current the opinion was that 

1 The modern Kerazeh. 

2 Probably on the site of the ruins called Et Tell, though some 
scholars have thought it at Khan Minyeh. Tell Hum is also possible. 

8 The modern Mukaur. 
4 Matth., xi, 2 ff . 

8 Leviticus, xviii, 16. 

9 Luke, xiii, 32. 
T Matth., xiv, 2. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 267 

men may be raised immediately after death, and how similar 
the two teachers were. In his estimate of John the Baptist, 1 
Jesus reveals his admiration of the great teacher, but also 
the consciousness of his limitations. He admired the firm- 
ness, the courage, the moral earnestness, the simplicity of 
life that characterized the prophet of the desert, without 
concealing from himself the failure of his terrifying mes- 
sage to reach and cleanse the deep-lying fountains of life. 
Because, with all his greatness, he lacked insight into the 
secret of the most radical and permanent moral and relig- 
ious influence, he still belonged to an order destined to pass 
away. 

It is impossible to state how long time had elapsed when 
Jesus was recalled to Capernaum by a message from the 
Roman centurion who had built the synagogue in which he 
had once preached. 2 He desired him to heal a favorite 
slave. The messengers were Jewish elders, and superin- 
tendents of the synagogue. While on the way to comply 
with this request, Jesus is met by a new deputation urging 
him not to defile himself by entering the house of a Gentile, 
but to heal by a word of command, as he no doubt could do. 
In this atmosphere of faith the slave, whose sickness is not 
indicated, recovered. Besides adding greatly to his influ- 
ence in Capernaum, this incident is likely to have led him to 
reflect on the artificiality of that barrier between Jews and 
Gentiles which the principle of faith so triumphantly over- 
stepped. Crowds gather in the house of Simon to hear him, 
and the sick are carried there to be healed. A certain class 
of diseases is generally explained as due to demoniacal pos- 
session, but a man does not come into the power of a devil, 
unless he has sinned. The sufferers are therefore con- 
stantly tormented by the consciousness of unforgiven sin. 
The Pharisees taught that only God can forgive sins. His 
forgiveness can manifest itself in two ways : by priestly ab- 
solution in the name of God, and by removal of the penalty, 
the new condition of health revealing acceptance with God. 

1 Matth., xi, 7 ff . 

* Matth., viii, 5 ff . ; Luke, vii, 1-10. 



THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 



Jesus shocked many of his hearers by assuring the despon- 
dent patients that their sins were forgiven, and even more 
by declaring that man has the right to forgive sins. 1 This 
privilege of assuring men that their past sins need not stand 
iii the way of their entering into proper, trustful and happy 
relations to God, when they have abandoned their sins and 
their disposition is right, is not reserved by Jesus for him- 
self, or made the prerogative of a priestly class, but freely 
assigned to his disciples and to all men. Nor does this 
emphasis of the forgiveness of sin in the case of the sick 
show that Jesus shared the common prejudice that sickness, 
accident, and sudden death are tokens of exceptional sinful- 
ness. He knew that the men on whom the tower of Siloam 
fell were not sinners above those that escaped 2 and that the 
field on which no rain fell did not necessarily belong to an 
unjust man f but he also knew that, because of the common 
doctrine, the sick man and the afflicted were in most need of 
such assurance. 

There seems to have been a custom house at Capernaum. 
Travelers across the Sea of Tiberias probably paid toll or 
duty. The officer receiving the duties belonged to a class 
thoroughly hated and despised, and generally in proportion 
as they did their work faithfully. Such tax-gatherers had 
many temptations to practise extortion or embezzlement, 
and were often regarded as little better than thieves. Their 
apparent alliance with the detested Roman power caused 
them to be socially ostracized. The name of the customs 
official in Capernaum was Levi, the son of Alphaeus. 4 This 
man became one of the leading disciples of Jesus. Others 
of the same class were drawn into the circle. Among the 
women who with eagerness listened to his words there were 
those whose reputation was bad, either because it was known 
that they had lived in irregular relations, or it was sus- 

1 Matth., ix, 6. 

2 Luke, xiii, 4. 
'Matth., v, 45. 

4 He seems also to have been known as Matthew ; Matth., ix, 9-13; 
Marie, ii, 13-17; Luke, v, 27-32. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 269 



pected that they had, or their possession by demons made it 
evident that they were sinners. A woman from Magdala 1 
by the name of Miriam had seven times been cured by Jesus. 
What her real disease was is not known. Without the 
slightest shred of evidence she has been made by ecclesiasti- 
cal tradition an abandoned woman, and vulgar rationalism 
has added its quota to the Mary Magdalene legends by 
gratuitously making her the mistress of Jesus. It is im- 
portant that Jesus did not feel it to be his duty to hold aloof 
from men and women who, for one reason or another, were 
shunned by polite society, respectable people and religious 
leaders. He conversed with them ; he greeted them ; he ate 
and drank with them. 

If this attitude to the socially ostracized gave rise to un- 
favorable comment, criticism increased when it was learned 
that he never fasted. It was so difficult to conceive of a 
prophet who did not show his sainthood by asceticism, that 
his mode of life seemed to some critical observers like a per- 
petual debauch. It began to be said: "He is a glutton 
and a wine-bibber." 2 John could be understood; he ate 
locusts and wild honey, drank no wine, let his hair grow, 
and wore a leathern girdle. But what manner of man was 
this who ate bread with publicans and drank wine with har- 
lots, and never stopped to fast? When he was asked why 
he did not fast, he said that it was not worth the while to 
put a new piece on an old garment or to pour new wine into 
old skins. 3 The old and the new will not mix, and com- 
promises are of no permanent value. Most offense, how- 
ever, was caused by his breaking the sabbath. Once his 
disciples went through a field on the sabbath and, as they 
were hungry, picked the grain and husked it between their 
fingers. When they were accused for this, he defended 
them by saying that David set aside the law when he de- 
manded of Abimelech at Nob the shew-bread which none 
but the priests were permitted to eat, and that the priests 

1 LuJce, viii, 2. Possibly Me j del, or some place in the vicinity. 
2 Matth., xi, 19. 
8 Matth., ix, 14-17. 



270 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

every sabbath broke the day of rest by carrying on their 
sacrificial work. 1 It matters little that he forgot the name 
of the priest 2 and that he wrongly supposed the priestly 
regulation he had in mind to have been in force in the time 
of David. He squarely faced the issue, and defended sab- 
bath-breaking by citing an instance when the law, as he 
thought, was broken by David, and a fact showing that even 
the priests did not observe the absolute cessation of work. 
Nor did he claim any special dispensation for himself and 
his disciples. He grandly concluded his answer by declar- 
ing that the sabbath was made for the sake of man, and not 
man for the sake of the sabbath, and that therefore man is 
lord also of the sabbath. He regarded it as a matter for 
man himself to decide what he should do with his day of 
rest. On any day he deemed it right to do what was in it- 
self right and good, and on any day he considered it wrong 
to omit a deed of kindness that could be done. Hence he 
worked as a physician on the sabbath as well as on other 
days. 

It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of this 
breach with the Law. Aside from circumcision there was 
no custom prescribed in the Mosaic Codes on which more 
stress was laid than on the observance of the sabbath. It 
was one of the chief characteristics of Judaism in the eyes 
of other nations. The opposition to Jesus on the part of the 
conservative religious leaders grew too strong for him to 
remain safely in Capernaum. He retired with some of his 
friends to the sea-shore. But he could not escape his grow- 
ing fame. People came from all parts of Galilee in search 
of him. He was forced to move about from place to place. 
While the crowds came and went, there gradually formed 
about him a little band of men and women who followed 
him withersoever he went. Tradition has it that he chose 
twelve men to be his disciples. 3 The precise number is not 
certain. It may be that "the twelve" is merely expressive 

1 Matth., xii, 1 ff. ; Marl; ii, 23 ff . 

2 According to Marl; ii, 26, he said Abiathar instead of Abimelech. 

3 Matth., xi, 1 ff . ; Mark, iii, 13 ff . ; Luke, vi, 13 ff . 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 271 

of a later idea that there should be one apostle for each of 
the twelve tribes of Israel. The number of the twelve apos- 
tles is as fictitious as that of the twelve patriarchs and the 
twelve tribes, and tradition was quite uncertain in regard 
to their names. The comparatively small group of men and 
women that thus attached itself more permanently to the 
Galilean teacher was probably the result of natural selection 
rather than of a formal choice. They received a twofold 
education for future service. The importance of his teach- 
ing which they enjoyed is generally recognized. But not 
less valuable was the communal life informed by his spirit 
in which it was their privilege to live. They had left all 
their former relations and all that they possessed for the 
kingdom of heaven. They lived simply, and their scanty 
needs were met especially by the means of the women who 
devoted their property to the cause, 1 but also by the indi- 
vidual efforts of the fishermen, 2 and by free gifts. What 
they had, they held in common. One among them seems to 
have been entrusted with the administration of their 
finances. 3 The common meal was a symbol of their unity. 
They gladly shared their bread and fish with the people that 
came to listen to Jesus. Such services as each could render 
were freely given. They worked for the good of men ac- 
cording to their ability and opportunity, as all men should ; 
they lived on charity, as all men in reality do, kings as well 
as beggars, but the principle was too potent to permit the 
existence among them of either kings or beggars. No one 
lorded it over his brothers, least of all Jesus himself. The 
need of intimacies and of solitude was recognized. Jesus 
often communed with Peter, James and John; and he at 
times retired for a night to be alone with himself and the 
Heavenly Father. It was not an ideal society; but Jesus 

1 Luke, viii, 3. 

2 Peter obtained by fishing the money to pay the temple-tax ; and 
that was surely not the only time he followed his trade. 

3 John, xii, 6, may have been drawn from a trustworthy source. 
Cheyne's conjecture (article Judas in Encyclopaedia Biblica), "he 
was a harsh man" for "he was a thief,' ' has much to commend it. 



272 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

earnestly sought to embody in its life the principles of the 
coming kingdom of heaven, to make it a sample of the 
society that was to be. And it certainly was pregnant with 
some ideals that are yet waiting for recognition in human 
society at large. 

The so-called Sermon on the Mount is probably not a ser- 
mon addressed to a large congregation of people ; it is doubt- 
ful whether it was spoken on a mountain or on a plain ; and 
it is not certain that either Matthew 1 or Luke 2 has recorded 
the address in its original form. Its ringing sentences were 
apparently first uttered in the privacy of his more immedi- 
ate followers. Both as a method of instruction and as a 
means of self-protection, Jesus seems to have adopted the 
use of the parable for public discourse. 3 It is indeed im- 
probable that he spoke to the people exclusively in parables. 
He certainly answered directly many a question, and many 
an epigrammatic saying has no doubt been preserved from 
a public address not at all confined to the narration of par- 
ables. But it is altogether likely that he employed by pref- 
erence the parabolic form of teaching when he found him- 
self confronted by a mixed and partly hostile audience, 
while he spoke more directly and openly in the presence of 
his disciples and friends. The searching criticism of funda- 
mental principles of the Mosaic law and of the common 
practices of piety as well as the unfolding of the higher 
righteousness of the kingdom of heaven may plausibly be 
regarded as having formed a part of his private instruction. 
Yet there is nothing esoteric about this teaching. He never 
set forth in public views different from, and more accept- 
able than, those he presented in private, and made no at- 
tempt at concealment of his real attitude to the Law. He 

x v, l ff. 

2 VI, 20-49. 

8 The object "was of course not to conceal from men in general the 
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven or to harden their hearts and 
make them ripe for their doom, as Matth., xiii, 10 ff . and parallels 
represent it. Jesus spoke to be understood and to lead men to re- 
pentance and knowledge of the truth; but the result seemed to the 
evangelists to be none else than that described in Isaiah, vi, 9 ff. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 273 

freely denounced as immoral the conjugal relations of the 
Pharisees, though they lived quite in harmony with both 
the letter and the spirit of the law. There is scarcely a 
principle laid down in the Sermon on the Mount that is not 
expressed in parables, repliques, or epigrams addressed to 
the multitudes or to his enemies. It is possible that in such 
familiar intercourse with his disciples Jesus at one time sug- 
gested what it would be proper to pray for, the advent of 
the kingdom of heaven, bread for the coming day, pardon 
for sin, and freedom from temptation. 1 Such desires were 
of course to be voiced in the closet, and not in public. The 
church made a formula of these suggestions, enlarged the 
number of its petitions, and recited it in public. 

As some of his disciples entered into the spirit of his 
teaching and felt his power, they began themselves to ad- 
dress the crowds. Upon one occasion some who had gone 
ahead of the company had not only preached repentance 
and announced the coming of the kingdom of heaven, but 
had also succeeded in casting out devils, i. e., in healing sick 
persons. They came rejoicing and reported this to Jesus. 
He shared their joy, and exclaimed: "I see Satan falling 
from heaven." 2 If they could do what he did, the good 
time was certainly coming when the power of Satan over 
men would be ended. As dangers surrounded them, he en- 
couraged his disciples to be brave, and not to fear men who 
could only kill the body, but not, as God, the soul also. 3 In 
his wanderings Jesus once came to the other side of the 
lake where the ten Greek cities were. 4 The story is told that 
outside of one of them he drove out a demon called Legion 
from a man and allowed the demon to enter a herd of swine 
which rushed into the sea and were drowned. 5 What 

1 The account in Luke, xi, 1-4, is more original than that in Matth., 
vi, 9-15. Various additions have been made to the four objects 
possibly mentioned by Jesus. The Gospel according to the Hebrews 
shows by its lehem mahar that the bread for the coming day is in- 
tended. 

2 Luke, x, 17-22. 

s Luke, xii, 4, 5. 4 With the exception of Scythopolis. 

6 Matth., viii, 28-34; Marie, v, 1-20 j Luke, viii, 26-39. 
18 



274 THE PKOPHET OF NAZARETH 

actually happened, cannot be determined. The fact that 
between the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. and the insurrec- 
tion of Simon bar Kozeba in 132 A. D. a Roman legion was 
located in that part of the Decapolis seems to have had 
something to do with the form of the story. The extraordi- 
nary calm and self-possession of Jesus in the midst of a 
storm may be sufficient to account for the story of his walk- 
ing on the water. 1 According to the reported words of 
Jesus, the daughter of Jairus was not dead, but asleep, 
probably a deep comatose sleep, from which he aroused her. 2 
This seems to have been the basis of reports to the effect 
that he could raise even the dead. Whether the miracle of 
the feeding of the five thousand grew out of a misunderstood 
saying of Jesus, 3 or developed from an actual experience of 
a small supply of bread and fish going very far to satisfy a 
large crowd, must be left in doubt. 

Conditions in Galilee became more insecure for Jesus and 
his disciples after a number of Pharisees had arrived from 
Jerusalem, either from curiosity or for the purpose of check- 
ing the dangerous movement. 4 They may have been invited 
by Galilean Pharisees who had been seriously scandalized by 
the life and teaching of Jesus, and offended by his un- 
measured denunciations. He had attacked them as a class, 
very much as Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah had at- 
tacked priests and prophets without discrimination. His 
compassion for the multitudes that were like sheep without 
a shepherd had intensified his distrust of these teachers who 
had the key to the understanding, but neither entered in 
themselves nor permitted others to do so, and his indigna- 

1 Matth., xiv, 22-33 ; Marie, vi, 45-52. But miracles of a similar sort 
related of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha may also have helped to 
shape the story. 

2 Matth., ix, 24; MarTc, v, 39; Luke, viii, 52. As this cure has grown 
into a veritable miracle under the hands of the Evangelists, so the 
accompanying story of the woman who had an issue of blood is likely 
to have grown. No reliance can be placed on the words said to have 
been spoken. It was clearly a faith-cure. 

"Matth., xvi, 6, 10 ff. 

* Matth., xv, 1 ff.; MarTc, vii, 1, 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 275 

tion at their self-complacency, formalism, and greed. The 
learned men from the Judaean capital soon observed that 
the disciples of Jesus did not wash their hands before their 
meals. This was an important discovery. What did Jesus 
teach concerning sacred ablutions? He promptly came to 
the defense of his disciples. No, he did not believe in these 
ceremonies. They were the traditions of men by which the 
commandments of God were set aside. Lest they should 
misunderstand him, and imagine that he had only drawn a 
distinction between the oral law and the written law, he 
hastens to make it plain that he rejected the whole system 
of tabus laid down in the Old Testament. "Hear me, all of 
you, and understand!" he cries. "There is nothing from 
without the man, that going into him can defile him ; but the 
things that proceed out of the man are those that defile 
him.'' Mark correctly understood him : ("This he said) 
making all meats clean. ' n He had broken with the Law in 
regard to the tabus, as he had in regard to the sabbath. 

The Pharisees then tried to persuade the people that he 
cast out demons through the power of Beelzebul, chief of 
the demons. 2 Jesus met the attack by pointing out that, if 
Satan drives out Satan, his kingdom is divided against it- 
self and cannot remain (good would be accomplished 
through the evil spirit possessing him), that a man cannot 
enter and plunder a strong man's house without binding 
him first, that the exorcists among the Pharisees would be 
liable to the same heinous charge, and finally that this ac- 
cusation was not merely slander against a fellow-man, but 
blasphemy against the good spirit through which the 
demons had been cast out. Whatever is said against a man 
may be forgiven, but blasphemy against the divine spirit 
cannot be forgiven. 

This conflict must have revealed to Jesus, if he had had 
any doubts on the point, how little hope there was of find- 
ing Judaea better prepared than Galilee for his radical gos- 
pel. He determined to leave his people, at least tempora- 

1 VII, 19. 

2 Matth., xii, 24 ff . ; Luke, xi, 14 ff . 



276 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH 

rily, and to betake himself to Phoenicia. Before departing, 
however, he seems to have desired to see once more his 
native town. But in Nazareth he found himself unable to 
do any mighty works. 1 He could effect no cures in an at- 
mosphere of scepticism and hostility. His mother and 
brothers who had gained the impression that he was beside 
himself, 2 when they visited him on a former occasion, are 
not likely to have given him any comfort now. It is pos- 
sible that people clamored for miracles, or at least for such 
wonderful healings as had been wrought in Capernaum, 
that they who thought they knew him so well pointed out 
some of his defects, and that he suggested his conviction 
that God had a work for him to do among the Gentiles by 
mentioning the examples of the Phoenician woman and 
Naaman. 

With a heavy heart, no doubt, he went into exile. There 
is no reason to question the assistance he gave to the child 
of a Phoenician woman. 3 But the conversation that is said 
to have taken place is quite incredible. It is as impossible 
to believe that Jesus should have refused to help a sufferer 
in Northern Syria on the ground that it would not be right 
to help a dog of a Gentile, as that he would praise as an in- 
stance of marvelous faith her willingness to debase herself 
by accepting such a gratuitous insult in order to secure a 
favor. It is sad enough that a Jewish Christian was still 
capable of inventing this story. The more difficult it was 
to make his thought understood in these foreign parts, the 
more anxious Jesus must have been to commend his message 
by deeds of kindness. How long he remained abroad, we 
do not know. 

On a visit to Caesarea Philippi 4 the purpose seems to have 
matured within him to go to Jerusalem in order to proclaim 
there the coming of the kingdom of heaven. 5 The carpenter 

1 Mark, vi, 5. 

3 Marie, iii, 21. 

3 Matth., xv, 21-28; Mark, vii, 24-30. 

* The modern Baniyas. 

'Matth., xvi, 13 ff.; Mark, viii, 27 ff.; Luke, ix, 18 ff. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 277 

of Nazareth knew very well that no man undertakes to build 
a house without first counting 'its cost. He had already had 
an encounter with the scribes of the Holy City, and knew 
what to expect. There also was great danger in the Mes- 
sianic speculations. To gauge the precise extent of this 
danger, he asked his disciples what men were saying about 
him. They answered that some regarded him as John the 
Baptist ; some, as Elijah ; and others, as Jeremiah, or one of 
the prophets. If this answer was in a measure reassuring, 
there still remained a possibly more serious danger. What 
did they think themselves ? Peter declared that he believed 
him to be the Messiah. By this he probably meant that he 
hoped he was the one who should deliver Israel. Whether 
this was the expectation of the whole band of disciples, or 
only Peter's own view, and how far Peter looked upon the 
Master 's words as a leading question, and felt called upon to 
make a proclamation that would change the career of Jesus, 
cannot be known. But Peter was doomed to disappoint- 
ment. It was not the first time he had failed to divine the 
purpose and meaning of the words of Jesus. But never 
had be been more quickly undeceived and disenchanted. 
Jesus charged his disciples not to say that he was the Mes- 
siah. He did not wish that men should believe in him as 
the Messiah and confess him as such. That is perfectly 
clear from what has been permitted to remain in the ac- 
count. What more he may have said to change their views 
upon the subject, and to show them how foreign to his mind 
were the hopes of royalty, we can only surmise from a state- 
ment thickly overlaid by a later tradition. He began to 
show them how dangerous was the mission on which he was 
setting out, how probable it was that he would meet with the 
fate of so many a prophet before him. When Peter, full of 
the dreams of empire, nevertheless held up his Messianic 
hope, and in the name of God protested against any fears 
of suffering and death, he was sternly rebuked by a "Get 
thee behind me, Satan, thou art a stumbling block to me, for 
thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men ! ' ' 
It is impossible not to see the tremendous anxiety of Jesus 



278 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

to put a stop to these Messianic delusions. Ecclesiastical 
upholders of the authority of Peter thought to change this 
stumbling block into a rock on which a church might be 
built, but it remains a stumbling-block to an understanding 
of the spirit of Jesus. 

The story that Jesus on the following sabbath was trans- 
figured before his disciples, that his garments became glis- 
tening, exceeding white so as no fuller on earth can whiten 
them, and that Moses and Elijah appeared with him, 1 seems 
to have been patterned after the story in Exodus xxxiv, 
27-30 of the glory on Moses 's face when he came down from 
the Mount, under the influence of these stories of the mys- 
terious body, which some accounts of the resurrection 
showed him to have possessed, like that of the risen or 
translated heroes of ancient Israel. As a foil, the evan- 
gelist pictures the vain attempts of the disciples at the foot 
of the mountain to cast out a devil from a sick boy, his 
impatience with them for not having faith enough to expel 
the devil, his own successful exorcism, and his explanation 
that the particular kind of demon possessing the boy could 
be driven out only by prayer and fasting. The account is 
scarcely historical. 

Having set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem, Jesus 
desired once more to visit the scenes of his labors in Galilee. 
No crowds welcomed him this time in Capernaum. It is 
evident that his radicalism, condemned by learned and pious 
men, had made even the common people afraid of having 
anything to do with him. It was not safe to expose oneself 
to the fascination of his eloquence, or to receive temporary 
benefits at the risk of possibly dealing with Beelzebul. 
There could be no doubt that he had rejected the divine law. 
Therefore he was himself rejected. The tax-gatherers who 
in the month before the Passover were collecting the half- 
shekel paid by every Israelite according to the law 2 for the 
support of the temple service were not sure whether he had 
put himself so far outside the pale of Judaism as to refuse 

l Matth. t xvii, Iff.; Mark, ix, 2ff.; Lule, ix. 2S ff. 
* Exodus, xxx, 11-16. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 279 

to pay this tax. 1 They had reason for asking Peter in re- 
gard to the matter, as the attitude of Jesus showed. He at 
once began to question the propriety o.f paying this tax. 
Were they to be forced to pay a tribute in money to God, 
as foreign subjects are forced to pay to an emperor, or were 
their relations to God to be free from such exactions, like 
those of sons to an earthly ruler? Jesus broke with the 
principle of compulsory support of religion, as he had with 
the principle of compulsory sabbath-keeping or observance 
of religious tabus. Whether he also meant to intimate that 
those who realized such filial relations to God might leave 
the supply of flesh for the altar and delicacies for the 
priests to those who in reality were strangers to God and 
his spiritual demands, is less certain. In any case, he 
thought it expedient to make the payment, Peter obtaining 
the necessary amount by resorting to his old trade. 2 

Jesus first planned to go through Samaria to Judaea. He 
did not share the common prejudice against this people, as 
the parable of the Good Samaritan shows. It was quite 
customary for Galileans to pass through Samaria on their 
way to Jerusalem. But conflicts often arose between Jews 
and Samaritans. Jesus seems to have sent James and John 
to prepare the way. 3 These hot-headed and ambitious men 
met with opposition, and came back expressing the wish that 
fire might fall from heaven and devour the Samaritans. 
Jesus rebuked them for cherishing the spirit of the old 
prophet Elijah. He then decided to go through Peraea. 
While there, some Pharisees warned him that Herod would 
put him to death. 4 They probably feared that he would re- 
main in Peraea. He requested them to tell "the fox" that 
he was doing good by casting out demons and was on his 
way to Jerusalem, which should show that he was not afraid 
of death, for Jerusalem had killed many a prophet. 

1 Matth., xvii, 24 ff . 

3 It is perfectly obvious how the miracle of the coin in the fish 'a 
mouth originated. 
*Luke, ix, 51-56. 
* Luke, xiii, 31-33. 



THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 



Some characteristic episodes may have occurred at this 
time. A young lawyer asked him: "Good Master, what 
shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus objected to his 
calling him "good," as none but God could be said to be 
good, told him to live a righteous life in harmony with God's 
commandments, and finally advised him to sell all that he 
had and join the little company. 1 His departure gave Jesus 
occasion to comment on the difficulty with which the rich 
could enter the kingdom of heaven. On the other hand, 
the rude act of his disciples in pushing aside some women 
who wanted Jesus to touch their little ones, gave him an 
opportunity to praise the little children as happy because 
they would live to see the blessings of the kingdom of 
heaven, 2 and to point out that only those who had a child- 
like spirit were fit for the coming society. Some ambitious 
request by the sons of Zebedee or their mother had been re- 
buked by Jesus in private ; then he felt it necessary to im- 
press upon the whole company the difference between his 
ideal of society and the actually existing forms of social life. 
The latter were based on authority and obedience to author- 
ity, the former on service and ambition to serve.* 

In Jericho, people gathered to see the Galilean prophet. 
The superintendent of customs, a man by the name of 
Zacchaeus, climbed up in a tree to have a bet: 
When Jesus perceived him and learned who he was, he 
asked him to receive him and his companions in his h< 
This Zacchaeus gladly did. 4 The usual criticism of such 
fraternizing with publicans was made by the Pharisees. 

Some evangelist read in the book of Zecharialr a passage 
supposed to refer to the Messiah, in which a king enters 
Jerusalem seated on an ass. Not understanding the par- 
allelism characteristic of prophetic and poetic style, he 
added an ass's colt, and made the Messiah ride on both. 

*Matth., xix, 16 ff. ; Mark, x, 17 ff.; Luke, xviii, IS ff. 
'Matth., xix, 13 ff.; Marl; x, 13 ff. ; Luke, xviii, 15 ff. 
•Matth., xx, 20-28; Mark, x, 35-45; Luke, xxii, 24-30. 
'Luke, xix, 1-10. 
•IX, 9. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 281 

This could not, of course, refer to the still expected advent 
of the Messiah. For that was to be in the sky. There 
was no room for its fulfilment, therefore, except at the last 
entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem. The evangelist cherished 
no doubt that the prophecy had then been fulfilled, and felt 
confident that the people must by this sign have recognized 
its king and hailed him joyously as their Messiah. 1 But 
that Jesus should have suddenly changed his whole view of 
life and his attitude to the royalist movement, that he should 
have sacrificed his prophetic ministry, conceived in so lofty 
a spirit, to fan the flames of a political insurrection, that 
the man, whose convictions had led him to break with fun- 
damental principles of the law at the risk of reputation and 
life, and had resisted as a satanic temptation the idea of 
marching to power by the means of the aspirant for a 
throne, should have deliberately set about to arrange the 
details of a sensational entry into Jerusalem in accordance 
with a misunderstood prophetic passage, is as inconceivable 
as the development of the story is easy to explain. The 
death on Calvary was not so tragic as such a surrender of 
his ideal would have been. 

The event that really brought about the violent end of his 
career was of a different character and in perfect harmony 
with his life and his convictions. In Bethany, 2 near Jeru- 
salem, he found a restful home with two sisters inclined to 
show hospitality to the Galilean prophet. 3 From here he 
quietly entered the city, and betook himself to the temple. 
What he saw, as he stepped into the outer courts, stirred 

1 Matthew (xxi, 1) states that Bethphage was the village where the 
two asses on which Jesus sat were procured. Mark, who knew that 
Jesus had friends in Bethany maintains that this was the village 
(xi, 1). Luke (xix, 29) combined the two so unskillfully that Beth- 
phage, which is nearer to Jerusalem, came first. The story in Matthew 
has the appearance of greatest originality : the raise en scene is most 
dramatic, and the Old Testament basis most evident. 

2 The modern El Azariyeh. 

* Luke, x, 38 ff. is probably out of its true chronological order. The 
time of the visit is likely to have been that referred to in Luke, xix, 
29. 



THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 



his spirit profoundly. Everything indicated that this was 
not a house of prayer, but a house of slaughter. He had in 
mind a prophetic word that this should be a house of prayer 
for all nations, 1 and he found only provisions for the sacri- 
ficial cult. He was shocked. The concentration of this 
cult in Jerusalem had made it possible for a pious Jew 
living at a distance from the city to commune with his God 
without giving much thought to the animal sacrifices. In 
all his teaching he had himself but rarely referred to the 
matter, and then only to indicate the greater importance of 
morality justifying even disregard for the legal injunctions 
in regard to sacrifices. 2 Here the service of God by the 
slaughter of animals, so sharply criticised by the great 
prophets of the past, stared him in the eye and filled hi< 
with loathing. He made a lash and began to drive out the 
money-changers and the sellers of animals for sacrifice 
peating the words, "My house shall be called a house of 
prayer." Apparently he also pn the destruction of 

the temple, as Jeremiah had done, though it undoubtedly 
was a false witness who claimed that he had threaten 
destroy it himself, and promised to build it up in three 
days. 3 The real significance of the evenl Lies in tin 
that, like the great prophets before the exile, he had at- 
tacked the sacrificial system and had voiced hifl conviction 
that religion was not dependent on the existence of the 
temple. 

The hierarchy had been touched in its holiest interests, 
and Sadducees called him to account and sought to ensnare 
him by questions. 4 By what authority did he disturb the 
peace in the temple? His rejoinder plainly indicated the 
answer. It was the prophet's authority, the authority of 
a John the Baptist; and this they did not dare to question 
because the people held the prophet of the desert in hiuh 
honor. As they supposed him to share the opinions of the 

1 Isaiah, lvi, 7. 

2 Matth., v, 24; cf. Mcttk., ix, 13, xii. 7, ami Marl; xii. 2S-34. 

3 Matth., xxvi, 61. 

* Matth., xxi, 23 ff.; xxii, 23 ff.; Marl; xii, 18-87 j Luke, xxi, II 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 283 

Pharisees, they thought they might find a vulnerable point 
in the doctrine of the resurrection for which there was no 
authority in the Law or the Prophets. Whose wife would a 
woman be in the resurrection who had had seven husbands ? 
His answer showed that he did not hold the common 
Pharisaic view. He believed that those who were accounted 
worthy of a resurrection were raised immediately after 
death, and based his belief upon the power of God, and ap- 
parently also upon his love, quoting the manner in which 
God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 
when speaking to Moses centuries after the death of these 
men. 

It was a dangerous trap that was set for him by the 
Pharisees and the Herodians by their question whether it 
was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. 1 A negative reply 
would have shown that he favored the establishment of an 
independent state. If he had desired recognition as the 
king of Israel, he might have gained sympathy by quoting 
prophetic promises of independence. But his answer was 
unmistakably in the affirmative. It was right to render 
unto Caesar what was Caesar's. The use of Caesar's money 
implied the recognition of Caesar's civil administration; 
the acceptance of its advantages involved the assumption 
of its duties. He was not concerned about forming a new 
state with its own money. He was anxious that the duties 
toward God should be recognized. When God received 
what belonged to him, his kingdom would come. This 
answer shows no indifference to the embodiment of righteous 
principles in the social life of man, but emphasis on what 
Jesus regarded as its only sound foundation. 

At Bethany Jesus was invited to the house of a Pharisee, 
who may have been called "the leper" because at one time 
afflicted by a cutaneous disease. 2 A woman who was known 
as a "sinner" here poured oil out of an alabaster cruse over 

i Matth. f xxii, 23-33; Marl, xii, 18-27; Luke, xx, 27-40. 

2 Matth., xxvi, 6-13; Marie, xiv, 3-9; Luke, vii, 36-50. In earlier 
times, as to-day, the term " leprosy* ' covered a number of skin-dis- 
eases, some of them curable. 



284 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

his feet. Simon demurred at this on the ground that Jesus 
must have known what kind of woman she was, as his 
' disciples afterwards did on the ground that the contents 
might have been sold and given to the poor. But Jesus 
showed Simon how he failed to understand the woman's 
nature, and what a precious foundation for a reformed char- 
acter such a love as hers was. A later tradition made of her 
act, by a forced interpretation, an anticipatory anointment 
for his burial, a thought as foreign to Jesus as to the woman. 
While the storm of opposition grew, and leading men in 
both the great parties cast about how to accomplish his over- 
throw, Jesus seems to have conversed with people during the 
day in the temple, which was safer than any other place, and 
to have retired each evening either to his friends in Bethany 
or to some secluded spot in the neighborhood. When it was 
possible to have a common meal, as of old in Galileo, it was 
a festive occasion. Though he realized the gravity of the 
situation and was prepared for the worst, Jesus appears to 
have maintained his usual attitude of chastened joy and firm 
confidence. It was afterwards remembered that at the last 
meal which the little company had together, he had spoken 
of the joy with which they would eat their bread and drink 
their wine when the kingdom of heaven should come. 1 
Twelve years ago the present writer 2 had reached the con- 
viction that Jesus did not on this occasion, institute any 
ceremony or request his disciples to eat and drink in remem- 
brance of him. It then seemed probable that in celebrating 
the paschal meal, he had with his accustomed spontaneity 
and freedom exclaimed when he saw before him the broken 
bread, (''This is) my body!" and as he looked into the cup 
filled with red wine, ("This is) my blood!" Continued re- 
flection on the elements of the problem has forced him to 
accept the conclusions of Eichhorn 3 and other scholars, that 
even this remnant must be given up. Jesus does not seem 

1 Luke, xxii, 18. 

2 The Significance of Christ's Last Meal in Journal of Biblical 
Literature, 1892, p. 1 ff. 
8 Das Abendmahl, 1899. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 285 

to have celebrated the paschal meal. He was probably put 
to death by the Jewish authorities before the time had come 
for eating the Passover. All the eucharistic formulas 
seem to represent the later growth of the Christian institu- 
tion and reflect theological speculation on the significance 
of the death of Jesus. 1 

There is every reason to believe that Jesus in these days 
more than once sought solitude for prayer and meditation. 
"While the disciples slept, he weighed the tremendous issues 
of his cause and implored divine guidance. It is not neces- 
sary to inquire how the words of his prayer became known. 
The Church knew very well what he must have prayed for, 
and believed that angels were sent to comfort him, 2 without 
seeking for testimony from his sleeping disciples. It was 
a long time before Christological considerations would have 
prevented an evangelist from putting upon the lips of Jesus 
words in which he subordinated his will to God's. 

Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane, 3 so called 
from an oil-cellar in the place, by a band of men among 
whom there were some servants of the high-priest, and taken 
to the palace of Caiaphas. At first his disciples seem to 
have made a show of resistance. At least one of them drew 
a sword and injured a servant of Caiaphas. Jesus told him 
to put up his sword, ' ' for he that taketh to the sword shall 
perish by the sword. ' ' 4 He was true to the last to his doc- 
trine of non-resistance. One of the followers of Jesus, who 
for some reason had left him and disappeared, was after- 
ward suspected of having led the band to Gethsemane. So 
many legends have clustered about his figure that it is quite 

1 In the large building called En Nabi Daud one is shown the room 
where the last supper took place. The tradition goes back to the 
seventh century. Already in the fourth century there stood on this 
spot a Church of the Apostles. But it was apparently not thought 
of then as the Coenaculum. 

2 Matth., xxvi, 36-46 ; Mark, xiv, 32-42 j Luke, xxii, 39-46. 

8 It is not known where this garden was. The Franciscans have 
one Garden of Gethsemane, the Eussians another. Neither can be 
very far away from the place where Jesus was arrested. 

* Matth., xxvi, 51, 52. 



286 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

impossible to determine what part, if any, he had in helping 
the men to find Jesus. We have no reliable data from 
' which to form a judgment of this man. 1 

Was Jesus tried in accordance with Jewish law, and of 
what crime was he convicted? It has been repeatedly 
shown that the trial as described in the Gospels is out of 
harmony with the legal procedure prescribed in the Mish- 
naic tractate Sanhedrin, and its Talmudic amplifications. 
The highest court of the Jewish people could not convene 
in the night, could not condemn an accused person on the 
same day that hi- Bfl taken up, could not sit on the 

day before a sabbath or the day before a 1 could not 

convict without tin- concurrent testimony of two witnesses 
could not deliver a verdict without a majority vote, a: 
the case of blasphemy could not condemn unless the utter- 
ance in question was a plain and unmistakable blasphemy. 
We know these legal principles only . ar in the 

codification of EL Jehudah at I f the second century, 

and works that are still later. In the main I re no 

doubt recognized in the time of Jesm Hut we also know 
that many provisions in the interest of the accused were 
flagrantly disregarded by the Baddueean party. The ei 
ination during the night in the house of Caiaphas is likely 
to have been only a private meeting. Whether Pharisees 
strongly prejudiced against Jesus would | q ob- 

jection to an extraordimi q on the day before the 

sabbath, or would have insisted upon a true indictment, suf- 
ficient testimony, and a second session, is doubtful, since the 
Sadducees could be made responsible for the irregularities. 
In the light of the historic conditions it would be quite un- 
warranted to conclude, as some have done, that Jesus cannot 
have been tried at all by the supreme court of Jewry, set 
that the rules laid down in the Mishna were manifestly not 
followed. 

It is evident that the high-priest was obliged to dismiss as 
irrelevant and insufficient any testimony offered by 
nesses. The charge that Jesus had seduced men i: 

1 Cf. Cheyne, article Judas in Encyclopaedia Biblica. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 287 

atry was clearly riot made at all ; it was at a much later time 
that such an accusation was framed. No Jewish court 
could have construed the prediction of the coming of the 
Messiah, or even the claim to be the Messiah, into a blas- 
phemy. What occurred at the private meeting of the 
enemies of Jesus, or the session of the Sanhedrin, can only 
have been a matter of conjecture on the part of the disciples 
of Jesus. 1 They naturally supposed that he must at last 
have been asked on oath whether he was the Messiah. The 
remarkable thing is that the earliest tradition on this point 
was too strongly reminiscent of Jesus' attitude to the Mes- 
siahship to allow him, even under oath, to affirm that he 
was the Messiah- and Luke 3 still felt that he must have pre- 
served his incognito, refusing to commit himself, and merely 
hinting at the future fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy. 
Only Mark, 4 writing to Gentiles to whom the term Christ 
had an entirely different meaning, made him admit that he 
was the Christ. We shall probably never know whether 
Jesus maintained throughout a dignified silence, or, stung to 
the quick by unjust charges and imputations, bore witness 
once more, in burning words, to the faith that was within 
him. Whether he was silent or spoke, his doom was decided 
upon beforehand. 

"We have a law, and according to that law he shall die." 5 
This was substantially the message of Caiaphas to Pilate. 
The Roman procurator would fain set him free. But the 
highest representatives of this subject people proclaimed that 
he was an insurgent, a pretender to the throne, a politically 

1 A consciousness of this lack of testimony may have led to the 
statement that Peter entered in to see the end, Matth., xxvi, 58, but 
the story that Peter denied his master where he was sitting " without 
in the court," vs. 69, shows that no emphasis was put upon Peter's 
nearness to the scene as verifying the account. 

2 XXVI, 64. 

8 XXII, 67-70. 

4 XIV, 62. 

6 John, xix, 7. The correctness of the words cannot be vouched for, 
and the addition "because he made himself the Son of God" reveals, 
the later standpoint of the evangelist. 



288 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

dangerous character, whom he could not allow at large and 
remain a friend and trusted servant of the emperor. Pilate 
understood well enough the nature of this extraordinary- 
anxiety about the welfare of Tiberius and the integrity of 
the empire. He would have been amused at their simulated 
fear lest the Roman yoke should be broken and Judaea be- 
come independent, had he not been so strongly impressed by 
the personality of this latest victim of their religious intoler- 
ance. Political considerations, however, forced him to fol- 
low the usual Roman method of not interfering with the 
laws of the subject nations. The '1 not possess the 

" right of the sword." They must obtain ; on of the 

procurator before they could inflict the death penalty. 
Pilate finally " handed him over to them to be crucifi- 
And they crucified him. Our earliest witness to the text of 
the Gospels, the Sinaitic Syriac \ render! it certain 

that the execution was not done by Roman soldiers, but by 
the Jewish authorities. 1 How far he was subjected to 
Bona! indignities, ia difficult to say. He certainly was not 
scourged by Pilate, and probably not by the Jews. 3 The 
mock-coronation may also be a later feature brought into 
the story by persons familiar with the « 1 custom 

of crowning a criminal as moek-ki- . ious 

to his crucifixion at the end of the year. 4 But the Jews 
who Crucified him divided between th- 
and as they sat and observed his end they wrote in der 
on his cross in Aramaic ' * kinir of th< - the 

crucifixion they had, according to Jewish custom, offered 
him wine mixed with myrrh, 6 in order to relieve his suffer- 

1 Luke's account of Pilate's sending .Testis to TTerod (xxiii, 6 ff.) is 
subject to grave doubts, and is probably unhistoric&L 

"It is the merit of Merx to have called attention to this fact, Da* 
Evangclium llatthacus. 1902, p. 416 ff. 

3 See Merx, /. c, p. 408 ff. 

♦See J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, 1900, II. 171 ff. ; III. 138 ff. 

6 So the altogether credible narrative in the Sinaitic Syriac version 
of Matthew. 

*Matth., xxvii, 34. The Sinaitic Syriac has wine, not vinegar. This 
is probable. It has gall; this is likely to be a mistake for an earlier 
myrrh. 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 289 

ings, and rob him of consciousness. It has generally been 
taken for granted that Jesus must have been crucified by 
the Romans, on the ground that crucifixion was a peculiar 
Roman punishment not prescribed in the Jewish law. It 
must be remembered, however, that impalement or hanging 
in some form was exceedingly common among the Semitic 
nations, that the Deuteronomic law (xxi, 22) mentions 
hanging on a tree as a penalty which Paul regards as equiv- 
alent to crucifixion, that the Jews adopted such Roman pun- 
ishments as death by the sword not prescribed in the law, 
that already Alexander Jannaeus had adopted crucifixion 
■11, as he crucified eiirht hundred Jewish rebels in the 
midst of the city, 1 and that there were good reasons why this 
form of punishment used by the Saddncean rulers should 
have been abolished in the later penal codes. It should not 
be necessary to emphasize to-day that the condemnation 
and execution of Jesus by Jewish authorities, with permis- 
sion of the Roman procurator, furnishes no justification for 
the age-long persecution of Jews by Christians. There is 
no nation whose conservatives have not waged war upon 
such radicals as Jesus, or whose prophets have not known 
the fellowship of his sufferings. 

Tradition ascribed to Jesus several utterances on the 
cross. Matthew and Mark have only the improbable quota- 
tion of the twenty-second Psalm. 2 Luke 3 substituted for 
the cry of God-forsakenness another word from the 
Psalter, 4 "Into thy hands I commit my spirit" and also 
added the beautiful prayer, 5 "Father, forgive them, for 
they know not what they do," as well as the promise to the 
robber, 6 "To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." The 
Fourth Evangelist went his own ways. Placing the beloved 
disciple and the mother beneath the cross, he had a word 

^osephus. BrlHim judaicvm. I, 97 f. 
*Matth., xxvii, 46; Mark, xv, 34. 
•XXIII, 46. 
4 Ps., xxxi, 6. 
8 XXIII, 34. 
• XXIII, 43. 
19 



290 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

for each. He made him exclaim, "I thirst," 1 and the part- 
ing word was the statement by the incarnate Logos who in 
his person had revealed God, "It is finished.'- Historical 
is the inarticulate cry of anguish with which he gave up 
the ghost, heard by the women who stood afar off. The 
Gospels narrate that he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of 
Arimathaea, a rich man who had secretly been a disciple of 
Jesus. 3 It is natural to suppose that this featun 
origin to the prophecy in Isa. liii, 9 "They made his crave 
with the wicked, and with the rich in his death." ;t it 
may also be that the body was buried, on amount of the fes- 
tival, in a plot of ground said to have belonged to this 
man. 4 

1 John, xix, 28. 

2 XIX, 30. 

*Matth., xxvii, 57 ff.; Mark, xv, 42 rT. ; Lvlfit, xxiii, 50 ff.; John, 
xix, 38 ff. 

4 It is not known where Jesus was crucified and in what spot his 
body was laid when taken from the cross. The gospels call the place 
of execution Golgotha (Gu(l)gulta, Kranion, Calvaria), or the Place 
of the Skull, ami declare that it was m-ar the city. This only shows 
that the spot must be sought outside of the walls enclosing the city in 
his time. The oldest tradition is attached to the Church of the Holy 
Sepulchre. It goes bark tine, who, in removing a temple of 

Venus and laying the foundations of a Christian basilica, unexpectedly 
came upon a cave or tomb (K fa Constantini, iii, 2o). We 

are not informed on what grounds it was identified as the tomb of 
Jesus. After a starting-point had thus been found, it was not diffi- 
cult to discover all the other sacred sites that now group themselves 
about this shrine. The main objection urged against this tra'. 
has been removed by the excavations and researches of Schick and 
Clermont Ganneau, which have tended to prove that the second wall 
ran south of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and that Jewish tombs 
actually exist within this enclosure, near the Jacobite Chapel and in 
the house of the Coptic Bishop. The present writer has been told by 
priests that there are other tombs below the so-called tombs of Joseph 
of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, but has not been able to verify these 
statements in spite of repeated attempts. The presence of these 
tombs is not altogether favorable to the tradition, since it raises the 
question whether it is likely that such a resting-place for the dead 
could have been chosen for an execution. In recent times, Thenius, 
Gordon, Conder and others have suggested as a possible site the knoll 



THE LIFE OF JESUS 291 

It is quite impossible to determine when the death of 
Jesus occurred. The Synoptists seem to have regarded his 
ministry as occupying one year. But they were palpably 
influenced by the prophecy of "the acceptable year of the 
Lord ; ' * and it is difficult to escape the impression that they 
have recorded events that must have occupied considerably 
more time. On the other hand, the Fourth Gospel has gen- 
erally been understood as stretching out his ministry 
through three years. This, however, is not certain, as the 
festivals recorded may be only those of one year, beginning 
with one passover and ending before the other. It appears 
probable that the official career of Jesus lasted more than a 
year, though it cannot be decided with our present data 
how long it was. There have been many attempts to de- 
termine the date of his death by the Jewish calendar or 
astronomically, but none are convincing. That Jesus died 
on a Friday, and that this Friday was the 14th of Nisan, is 
probable. All evangelists agree that it was on the eve of 
the sabbath. The gospels according to John and Peter 
make this Friday the day when the paschal meal was eaten; 
the Synoptic gospels make it the day following that when 
the Passover was celebrated. 1 The second representation 
may have been as strongly influenced by the idea that Jesus 
must have eaten the paschal meal, as the former was by the 
idea that he was put to death on the day when the paschal 
lamb was slain. Intrinsically, it is most probable that the 
authorities were anxious to have this work done before the 

above "Jeremiah's Grotto,' ' northeast of the Damascus Gate, urging 
in favor of this theory that the present north wall was the second 
wall of the city, that the place has the appearance of a skull, and that, 
according to a Jewish tradition, it was the place of stoning. But the 
first of these arguments can no longer be maintained; it is by no 
means certain that the name was derived from the configuration of the 
hill, and quite doubtful whether, even before a part of it was blasted 
away, it had any real resemblance to a skull ; and the Jewish tradition 
is modern. Others have suggested other hills north of the city. The 
question cannot be settled in the present state of our knowledge. 

1 Isaiah, lxi, 2. 

2 See Schmidt, The Significance of Christ 's Last Meal, in Journal of 
Biblical Literature, 1892, p. 1 ff. 



292 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

festivities began. If the Jews of the period had arranged 
their festive calendar by the astronomical new moon, it 
would be a comparatively easy matter to find in what year, 
during the procuratorship of Pilate, the 14th Xisan fell on 
a Friday. But they seem to have determined the appear- 
ance of the new moon by ocular observation dependent on 
the w r eather. In addition the system of intercalary months 
is not sufficiently known to enable us to d which of 

these years a thirteenth month was fa 1. It, there- 

fore, seems hop b tie- qoeatioiL <iinzel l has 

again called attention to the fact that of the nine lunar 
eclipses that ocenrred betw .. D. only the par- 

tial eclipse on April :}d, 38, WM -alem. While 

an eclipse of the moon on the day when Jesus died may have 
given rise t<» the story of a great darkness % the 

whole land for three hour not safe to draw any con- 

clusions from this bare possibility. He must have died 
before the end of 36 A I)., the last y< late's admin- 

istration. II* he about 6 H. C. and began his min- 

istry in 29 A. D., he may not have reached his fortieth year, 
when, misunderstood and abandoned 

trusted and feared by the common people whose cause he 
had espouse.]. ! and hated by the representatives of 

every popular form of religion, and condemned as a blas- 
phemer by the highest court of his nation, he paid the 
penalty for spiritual ind- | I cruel and ignomin- 

ious death. 

x Spcz\dlcr Kanon iff Sonnen und Mondfinstcrni$*c, 1899, p. 800. 



CHAPTER XI 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 



It is a significant fact that none of the historic creeds of 
Christendom devotes any attention to the great ideas that 
occupied the mind of Jesus. The framers of these vener- 
able statements of Christian belief were deeply concerned 
about philosophical questions, important in their way, 
which were wholly foreign to the thought of Jesus, and 
laid heavy stress upon theological notions that had re- 
ceived no emphasis in his teaching. Their thoughts were 
not like his thoughts. The so-called Aposth d be- 

gins by affirming the faith of the Church in "God the 
Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. 91 This 
"God the Father" is not the Heavenly Father whose im- 
partial love for all his children, the sons of men, Jesus 
proclaimed; it is the first of three diviii OS, whose 

distinction from "his Son" lies in his being the source of 
all creation. Jesus no doubt believed that God had 
created heaven and earth, but that was not his un- 
to men. Concerning himself the Creed goes on to affirm 
that he was the "only begotten Son," "conceived by the 
Holy Ghost," and "born of the Virgin Mary," ideas 
r express.. 1 by him, and probably altogether unin- 
telligible to him. Concerning his manner of life, his spirit, 
his convictions on moral and religious questions, his con- 
flict with popular Judaism, his work as a physician and as 
a reformer, the words and deeds by which he exercised his 
influence upon the world, this creed has nothing to say. 
It passes by his life to dwell upon his death, descent to 
hell, resurrection, ascension, and expected return to judge 
the quick and the dead. There is not the slightest hint in 
the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus ever spoke about descend- 

293 



294 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

ing to hell or ascending to heaven, and it is recognized 
by critical students that there is not sufficient evidence to 
warrant the assumption that he prophesied his resurrec- 
tion on the third day and his return as a judge. Jesus no 
doubt believed that a holy spirit was sent out by God 
through which prophets spoke and wrought might; 
but it is quite certain that he had never heard of "the 
Holy Ghost," the third person of the Trinity. II.- prob- 
ably neither hoped for nor feared the development of a 
"Holy Catholic Church." "The communion of the 
saints," which originally meant the worship of the de- 
parted saints, though not unknown among II 
Jews, is never mentioned by and is not like! 

have been practiced by him. There are unmistakable 
indications that he did not believe in a general r 
tion on the last day, or in a restoration of the flesh. 
later creeds, Catholic or Protestant, whether with 

the Trinity, the person, natures, will and work oi 
the eternal d< the plan of salvation, or the | 

sure to overtake all unbelief 

moral and religi aim to I 

voice, and still more explicit in t ; 
unknown to him, or disapproved by him. 

To some extent the New Testament is its-]. -ible 

for this shifting of the inter 

messenger, from the ethical to the metaphysical Air 
in the Synoptics, but Uy in the Fourth Gospel and 

the Epistles, the personality of •' 

ject of a reverent speculation that hing 

into the background. A reader not com- 

pare texts, eliminate interpolate 

the value of translations, might readily gain tie- in.; 
sion from late additions to the Synoptic 
misinterpretations by the authors of tl that 

Jesus on some occasions placed himself far above his 
fellow-men, and demanded of them the obedience 
to their master, or of subjects to their king. The t 
siastical tradition that made the Fourth a work 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 295 

of the apostle John almost inevitably led persons who 
failed to observe or appreciate its marked contrast with 
the Synoptic representation to the conviction that Jesus 
directed attention to himself, and declared it essential to 
salvation to have a knowledge of his personality. The 
Pauline literature completely ignored the earthly life and 
the teaching of Jesus, finding the power of salvation in 
the mystic union between the believer and that celestial 
being who, though crucified, was the Christ, and had 
been proclaimed as such by resurrection from the dead. 
The influence for good that found its way through this 
doctrinal development, begun in the New Testament and 
continued in the period of the crystallization of dogma, 
admits of no question. But as the mythical and leg- 
endary conceptions that once were so necessary and use- 
ful loose their hold upon men, interest returns with in- 
creased momentum to tin- aetual thought of Jesus. 

The teaching of Jesus revolved about two focal points: 
the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Father in Heaven. He 
never seems to have given a definition of the kingdom of 
heaven, and his conception can only be inferred from the 
manner in which he speaks of it in parables and detached 
sayings, and the relation it seems to have had to his gen- 
eral teaching on moral questions. An additional diffi- 
culty arises from the fact that there often is much uncer- 
tainty as to the accuracy and even the meaning of the 
Greek translations of his sayings. Hence some of the 
most fundamental questions are still under debate. Did 
he conceive of the kingdom of heaven as belonging to the 
future, or as a present reality? Did he regard it as an 
institution existing in heaven, or one to be established 
on the earth ? Did he use the term to designate an organ- 
ized state, or a dominating influence? Did he look for 
its establishment suddenly and miraculously, or expect its 
coming gradually by the spread of the truth and the 
growth of righteousness? Though these questions are 
closely allied, the answer to one does not necessarily de- 
termine the replies to the others, and though the alterna- 



296 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 



tives are sharply marked, the acceptance of one does not 
necessarily preclude the recognition of a certain element 
of truth in the other. Thus the interpreter who realizes 
that the kingdom of heaven is likely to be an eschatolog- 
ical magnitude is naturally inclined to view i1 >rld- 

empire to be established on earth suddenly and mi: 
lously by the power of God. On the other hand, the 
scholar who recognizes the inevitable retouching of any 
words of Jesus on this subject in new of the curr e n t apoc- 
alyptic ideas, and deems it probable that the kingdom of 
heaven was to Jesus I pi i the 

opinion that the Galilean prophet only looked forward to 
the gradual recognition among men of I , and 

tin- increasing harmony of earth's life with the conditions 
prevailing in heaven. 

But the ideal that presented H have 

been recognized by him as essentially I i the 

future, and yei in process <>f PCS 

II.' may have regarded it i only in the 

thought and purpose <>f Qod, but in the beaTeniy so 
of angels and men accounted worthy from 

the dead to an angel-like 

also to appear among men on earth. 11 may hav- 
pected the kingdom ol heaven in its full-grown | 
be a social organization taking ti. 
founded by men on principles which 
yet have looked upon the dominating influen God in 

the lives of individual men as an MOM 

in the world, and an earnest of its complete manii 
And he may have wistfully gased into the hit 
of some impending judgment on hi^ 
political revolution, some mighty upheaval among the 
nations, ushering in tremendous eh D the li: 

man, and may have firmly believed, as did the | 
before him, that such sudden, awe-inspiring and marvel- 
ous events were the work of God bringing about 
holy purposes, without committing himself on this account 
to the view that the world was coming that 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 297 

God would by a miracle cause a new world to spring into 
existence, with new conditions wholly unrelated to the 
old ones. The a priori notion that he must have given to 
this term the meaning likely to have been attached to it 
in circles affected by apocalyptic writings is as unwar- 
ranted as the a priori notion that, when he used it, he must 
have had in mind either heaven above or the Church 
below. 

It is clearly necessary to examine philological ly the term 
that Jesus is likely to have employed, ami to take note of 
its meaning in the Jewish Literature of the period; but the 
manner in which he used it himself, as shown by a critic- 
ally investigated text, ifl alone decisive. The Aramaic 
malkut diskemayya means "the reign of heaven.' 1 As 
"heaven" was an exceedingly common substitute for 
"God" at a time when the Jews avoided the use of any 
divine name, the term is equivalent to "reign of G 
as it was also understood by the later evangelists. There 
is no clear instance where malkut means "kingdom" in 
of a geographical "realm" or "territory." or 
of a "body politic" viewed from the standpoint of the 
citizens composing it. But it is sometimes used mor 

stractly for "reign," "regime," "royal power," sorae- 

- more concretely for "government," "monarchy." 

"emp Thus the Roman empire is often referred to 

alkuta. In the book of Daniel the term denotes the 
world-empire which passei from the Ohahlaeans to the 

•s, the Persians, the Greeks, and finally the Jews. 
Something more than the supreme authority over the na- 
tions is luggested The expectation is of an organized 
Jewish empire in the form of a theocracy. The term 
"theocracy," employed by Josephus to describe the po- 
litical organization of the Jewish commonwealth, is prob- 
ably a translation of malkut dishemayya. Dalman 1 has 
adduced ample evidence from Jewish literature of the 
use of this term to designate the present authority of God 
over the lives of men. It is a question, however, whether 
1 Die Worie Jesu, 1898, p. 75 ff. 



298 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

the great bulk of his proof -texts, quoted from works later 
than the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the peo- 
ple, may not represent a modification of the earlier con- 
ception. It would be in harmony with the general de- 
velopment of Israel's religions life, if the eschatological 
and political character of tin- kingdom "ill so 

marked in the book of Daniel, should have gradually _ 
place to a more spiritual conception, emphasizing the 
present rule of the divine lav In the time of J 

both of these ideas may have I by the 

expression. 

There can be no mi : doubt that to the min 

is the kingdom of heaven was in a larg ire a fact 

belonging to the future. was a prophet I 

were eagerly In. •kin- for the things thai were to come. 
This was no mere idle speculation. Present condil 
did not satisfy him. He could not believe in the Heavenly 
Father without believing with all his heart that he 
better things in >r men. II • ! with pro- 

found int. -n-st t! d it the 

duty of all men as a vital question with 

him what God w orld. I 

painfully he was affected by the hm iness, 

the physical ailments and mental diseas- 

and servitude, the worry and want of faith, tie 

lust and greed of men, the m ped for a 

better state of things, and the in vhed 

for the disposition of heart and the principles of conduct 

that would prevail in an ides ad this ideal 

and to hold it against the world appeared to him the most 

commanding duty and the highest pri\ _dom 

of heaven was to him the sum mum taws*. It was worth 

the while to live and suffer and die for it. II - tirst 

recorded utterance 1 and his last- ref ling. 

Hence he called those blessed who won! 

he proclaimed its advent as good news to the poor, the I 

'Matth.. iv. 17. 

2 Luke, xxii, 18. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 299 

fering, the socially ostracized. Hence he described, in 
matchless parables, its supreme worth and the joy of seek- 
ing and striving for it. He made it perfectly clear that 
the coming of the kingdom of heaven would mean a judg- 
ment on all that was high and exalted among men, all that 
was artificial and untrue, all that was built on the sand; 
but his moral earnestness did not exhaust itself in a cry 
of doom, as the prophetic messages of Amos and Hosea, 
Isaiah, Jeremiah and John the Baptist had. His was the 
voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Comfort ye my 
people; prepare ye a highway for the Lord!" 

With all this, .J.'sus did not picture in detail the ideal 

that stood before him. II.' did n<»t describe the fertility 
of the soil, the clothing of the wilderness with all man- 
ner of trees, tin- plenty of oil and corn and must, the joy 
of sitting under one's own vine and fig-tree, the freedom 
from political oppression, tie* submission of the Gentiles to 
tie* yoke of the Law, the passing of the empire to the peo- 
ple of the .Most High, ;is post-exilic prophets had done. 
Some of these things he did not expect, and some he did 
not consider it worth the while to dwell upon. There 
and Car more important, that fas- 
cinated him in his view of the future, and these he pro- 
elaimed with no uncertain sound. It was the righteous 
lift- of Mi" oew social order that attracted him. The man 
who spent so much of his tim«- in healing the siek, reliev- 
ing the needy, and bringing the joy of fellowship to the 
outcast was not indifferent to the physical environment 
and the social conditions. Hut he realized that, if men 
would first seek the kingdom of Qod and its righteousness, 
all these things would be added unto them. 1 It was his con- 
viction that the reign of God would produce a higher type 
of righteousness, and that this would produce a good and 
desirable life for man on the earth. In thus seeking for 
righteousness above everything else and in holding up 
his own ideal of righteousness against the views prevail- 
ing in his social milieu, he was the son of the prophets 
l Matth., vi, 33; Luke, xii, 31. 



300 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

whose denunciation of wrong-doing had made them the 
spiritual factors in the nation's life, and a true son of 
Israel whose sense of duty had produced such a prophetic 
order. 

His ideal of righteousness differed in several respects 
from that prevalent among men who were generally re- 
garded as paragons of piety and exemplars of virtu** in 
Israel. Most important was his contention that a truly 
righteous character was not the sum of outward acts re- 
garded as righteous. On the contrary, it was the right- 
eous disposition that made the act valuable. "Make tie- 
tree good, and its fruits will be good." 1 "II the fountain 
is good, all the water that flows from it will be sweet." 
The important thing to JeBUfl was that a man should be 
moved inwardly by love of God and love of fellow-man. 
From this correct inner attitude of mind would then radi- 
ate the words and deeds and helpful influences of a good 
life. The demand for such a righteous inner disposition 
was not new either in Israel or in the world. Among the 
introspective Hindus and the (dear think:- 
often been expressed: it was emphasized in th 
philosophy of the Stoics; in later Jewish literature it had 
found increasing recognition. But in the t of 

Jesus it dominated in a peculiar manner, and led to a 
break with the established forms of re. I a point 

where it could become of epoch-ma' nificance for 

the "Western world. If conformity to an external stand- 
ard, obedience in outward form to the rules laid <: 
in the Law, or by competent authority interpreting the 
Law, was not to constitute an act as good, but the char- 
acter of the act was to be determined by the inner 
position, the knowledge of what is true and right must 
likewise be derived, not from an external authority, but 
from the inner light. Jesus accepted this consequence, 
and insisted that the inner eye must be sound and respon- 
sive to the direct illumination of the divine, that men must 

x Katth., vii, 17 ff.; Luke, vi, 43 ff. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 301 

judge of themselves what is right. 1 It was by heroically 
throwing himself upon this inner source and sanction of 
truth that Jesus gained his marvelous confidence, and was 
led to an open breach with the current ethico-religious 
ideal as it expressed itself in overt acts. 

The common idea of his time, based on the law and 
the natural inferences from its enactments, was that hu- 
man society could not exist, or develop profitably, with- 
out the killing of enemies, retaliation in kind, condemna- 
tion of men, oath-taking, royalty, slavery, divorce, usury 
and private capital. None of these things had a place in 
the society for whose coming Jesus lived and died. There 
would be no wars under the new regime. For war is pos- 
sible only where men are willing to kill their real or sup- 
posed enemies. It cannot be carried on where men, fol- 
lowing their own judgment, refuse to obey any man's 
order to kill indiscriminately the citizens of another 
country for honor or conquest or to revenge a slight, and 
where men cultivate a manly spirit of self-control, for- 
bearance, patience, consideration and magnanimity to- 
ward real enemies. Jesus was convinced that in the bet- 
ter society to come, men would love their enemies, and 
seek to overcome their evil disposition by kindliness and 
active work for their welfare. This would, of course, 
preclude the barbarity of war as completely as the out- 
grown barbarity of cannibalism. 

The penal code of the Hebrews was based on the princi- 
ple of retaliation. Like the Code of Hammurabi, the 
Mosaic Codes prescribed that an eye should be taken for 
an eye, a tooth for a tooth, 2 a life for a life. 3 The harsh- 
ness of this legal enactment was often relieved in civilized 
countries by a provision for monetary restitution. Jesus, 
however, attacked the principle itself as out of harmony 
with his idea of justice. His criticism was that this legal 
measure did not serve any purpose of correction, did not 

l Matth., vi, 22 ff. 
* Leviticus, xxiv, 20. 
'Lev., xxiv, 18. 



302 THE PROPHET OF XAZAEETH 

reach the root of the evil, did not change an unrighteous 
into a righteous life. In his judgment that could be ac- 
complished only by destroying the evil in the man by bring- 
ing good, wholesome, kindly influences to bear upon his 
character. It is evident that, if Jesus had meant to re- 
strict the operation of his superior principle to such 
wrongs as the courts take no cognizance of, while approv- 
ing the lex talionis as applied by the courts, he would not 
have selected for his distinct rejection a statement in the 
Law that, as everybody knew, had no reference to pri- 
vate revenge, but to judicial action. As if to prevent any 
minimizing of the import of his utterance, he added that 
every condemnatory judgment was out of harmony with 
his ideal of the method of dealing with evil-doers. ' 
could find no place in the new society for so-called puni- 
tive justice, by which one deed of violence is pun> 
by another deed of violence, but onh h corre< 

measures as aim at the same time to the reclaiming of the 
evil-doer and the protection of the innocent. 

Jesus did not regard the oath as i 
He had observed the natural tendency of oath-takin 
invalidate the obligation or veracity in statements not 
sworn to. But his chief objeeti<>- to have been its 

lack of modesty. A creature who cannot add a cubit to 
his stature, and does not know what the morrow will 
bring, impotent and ignorant both as to his own na' 
and in regard to the future that lies before him. assi; 
to swear by the ever-living God — for all oaths, how 
worded, are essentially oaths by God — that he will do this 
or that! The Law sanctioned swearing wl. -ath 

was kept, but made perjury a crime. 1 -aid: 

' 'Swear not!" "Tell the truth!" The Church, less con- 
fident in the potency and safety of just telling the truth, 
was glad to learn from her scribes that Jesus probably 
had in mind only some ill-sounding curs and 

asseverations that too easily fall from the lips of Orientals 
in the rush of conversation, not an oath that really had 

1 Lev., xix, 12. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 303 

any significance, and she continued to swear. But the 
probability is against this scholastic construction. If 
Jesus had meant to impress upon the minds of his disciples 
such a distinction between private swearing and public 
swearing, he could not have more completely forgotten to 
mention the only thing for which he is supposed to have 
called their attention to the ancient law, or more abso- 
lutely have led them away from any thought of a subtle 
distinction between public and private swearing to the 
idea that he, like some other teachers, rejected the oath as 
such. That is what the Essenes seem to have done. 
Josephus relates that they rejected every oath, and con- 
sidered the taking of an oath worse than perjury, 1 and 
that on this account Herod did not demand of them an 
oath of allegiance, as he did of the Pharisees. 2 In view 
of this, his statement that at their initiation into the so- 
ciety the members bound themselves with an oath 3 is 
subject to the same doubt as the similar statement in re- 
gard to the Christians in Pliny's letter to Trajan. 
Neither the Essene nor the Christian brotherhood prob- 
ably looked upon the ceremony of initiation in the light 
of an oath. 

Jesus looked for a society where there would be no 
kings or rulers, where no man would exercise authority 
or lord it over his fellows. 4 This principle rendered it 
impossible for him to share the common desire for a Mes- 
siah. He knew that what the world needed was not a 
Messiah, a king of the Jews, or an emperor of the nations, 
but a race of men subject to no man's bidding but eager 
to serve, and counting him greatest who, with the least 
desire to impose his authority on men, is able, by hum- 
ble and faithful service, to exercise the widest influence 
for good. In one sense Jesus was, therefore, like Plato, a 
philosophical anarchist. But his anarchy was tempered 

1 Bellum judaicum, II, 135. 

2 Ant., xv, 371. 

8 Bellum judaicum, II, 139-142. 
1 Luke, xxii, 24 ff. 



304 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

by his theocratic idea. He disbelieved in man's authority 
'over man, because he believed so earnestly in God's au- 
thority over man. If he reflected at all upon the need of 
light and leading for the more and more complicated 
activities of society, he may have looked for a special 
prophetic order, or for the endowment of men in every 
walk of life with the necessary insight and power. That 
is what every democracy must depend upon. It must 
have interpreters of the laws of the universe, moral 
physical, and men and wonn-n who, possessed of extra- 
ordinary knowledge and skill, put t) 

the people. Jesus did not distinctly express his views on 
the question of slavery. But there ia every reason to be- 
lieve that he shared the views of the ; who had no 
slaves but were all free, working one for the other. 1 It 
is certain that there were m in his little so< 
and his attitude t of authority precludes ap- 
parently the possibility of his approving slavery as an 
institution. 

In the futur y there would be no divorce, see- 

ing to the view of Jesus. Marriage would red only 

by some men and women for the propagation of the race, 
and be absolutely indissoluble, by death. 1 Be 

seems to have regarded married life as a condition pr 
for a certain class in from which 

unfit for the sexual function should he naturally exclu 
and from which others, following his own example, mieht 
profitably exclude themselves for the sake of the i 
dom of heaven, 8 in order | and to real- 

ize in their own lives the strictest demands of its 
righteousness. 

1 Philo, II. 457j .loschus. Ant., xviii, 21. 

3 This is clear from Mark, x, 11. 12. In Matth., v, 32, and xix, 9, 
"save for the cause of adultery" has been added. The addition ia 
already found in the Sinaitie Syriac ; but, weighty as thia testimony 
always is, it cannot prove that the phrase was an original part of the 
saying of Jesus. Mark could have no motive in leaving it out; but 
the motive for adding it is obvious. 

3 Uatth. xix, 11, 12. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 305 

The Jew was forbidden by the Law from practising 
usury on Jews but permitted to charge interest on his 
loans to Gentiles. 1 The result was that many a well-to- 
do son of Abraham refused to relieve by a loan the dis- 
tress of his fellow countryman, while he was quite ready 
to accommodate a Gentile who had good securities, and to 
charge such interest as he could get in view of all the 
circumstances. Thus the often accidental and unmerited 
possession of money gave a power over another man's life 
apt to increase and to rob him of his independence. Jesus 
could not conceive of this fruitful source of enmity con- 
tinuing under the new regime. Men would not hold back 
the needed loan, 2 unless they could make profit out of the 
necessities of their brothers. In fact, he deemed the heap- 
ing up of vast private fortunes as an evil destined to pass 
away with the coming of the kingdom of heaven. He 
could not harmonize with his ideal of social righteousness 
the co-existence of great wealth in the hands of few and 
great destitution prevailing among the many. The prin- 
ciple of a man getting for himself all that he can seemed 
to him wrong, and he desired to see it superseded by the 
principle of sharing. He appears to have reached his con- 
clusions on this point, not only through the impression of 
unjust inequalities, but even more by observation of the 
evil effect upon character of wealth thus held. How far 
he had given any thought to the manner in which a better 
method of distribution could be developed, is difficult to 
say. He felt that only the principle of sharing with 
others could bring about a society in which the extremes 
of wealth and poverty should no longer exist. 

There can be no doubt that Jesus expected the full op- 
eration of these principles only in the new social order or 
theocracy which he designated as the kingdom of heaven. 
But it would be quite unwarranted to infer from this, as 
some have done, that he did not look for their application 
until "the millennium" should come, and was well aware 

1 Deuteronomy, xxiii, 19, 20. 

2 Matth., vi, 42. 

20 



306 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

that they were impracticable under present circumstances. 
' The arguments adduced to prove that he did not regard 
them as obligatory even upon himself, or that he did not 
give them the radical sense they seem to bear on the sur- 
face, are for the most part of a trivial nature. It is said 
that he cannot have believed in the overcoming of evil 
with good on all occasions, as he drove the money-changers 
from the temple, 1 and once commanded his discipl 
sell all that they had and buy swords. 2 On the former 
occasion he may indeed have given way to a passion of 
anger, and it is by no means certain that he would have 
afterwards wished his disciples to follow his example and 
to defend it, though it should be remembered that th- i 
no element of - r e or of private or official punishment 

in the act, and that he may have had DO aim but correc- 
tion, and no motive but kindness. The words with which 
he rebuked Peter for his use of U too plainly 

condemnatory of all use of the sword to permit the 
thought that he had ever contemplated i 
as must have been in his mind, it* he actually ordered his 
followers to sell all their possessions and buy sword- 
even had thought of the protection of h 
private attacks by killing or manning his enemies. The 

evidence semis to show that he was loyal to tl. 
the convictions he had so clearly expressed. It is fur- 
more averred that before the high-pi was willing 
to be put under oath, even though he did no: him- 
self. Even Merx, who with great learning has g 
together the evidence that the phrase. "Thou sa; 
is virtually a refusal to answer the qu 
enough quotes the passage to show that Jesus had no ob- 
jection to being put under oath. 4 When it is recognized 
that we have no knowledge of what occurred in the | 
ence of the high-priest, this in itself futile argument ■ 

1 Matth., xxi, 12 ff. and parallels. 

2 Luke, xxii, 36. 
'Matth., xxvi, 52. 

4 Cf. Das EvangcUum Matthacus, 1902, p. 101. and p. 392. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 307 

be finally laid aside. The idea that Jesus cannot have been 
opposed to autocracy, since he claimed for himself royal 
authority, is based on a misunderstanding of his use of 
the term "son of man" and on late additions to the gospel. 
An approval of usury and of private wealth has been 
found by many in the parables of the Talents 1 and the 
Unjust Steward. 2 Did he not say that it was better to 
put money in a bank and draw interest on it than to bury 
it in the ground, and that it was still better to try to get 
an enormous profit from a small outlay ? Yes, and did he 
not say that it was better for a steward to swindle his 
master and make friends of the debtors by forgeries, in 
order to secure his own future, than to await the ignomini- 
ous discovery of his embezzlement, since by such wise use 
of money it was possible to obtain everlasting life? It 
should not be necessary to indicate the point of the first 
parable which pa o judgment on current business 

methods, least of all contrary to the plain teaching of 
Jesus without any figure i h on other occasions, but 

simply inculcates the necessity of cultivating such powers 
as a man po- since they grow with use and are 

lost if not used. As for the second, it seems impossible 
to recover its original form. It is equally difficult to be- 
lieve that Jesus could ever have looked upon so clumsy 
a forgery as a wise and praiseworthy expedient, and that 
he could have commended any wisdom in the use of the 
unrighteous Mammon, having the faintest resemblance 
to this, as likely to bring about a happy reunion of friends 
in the everlasting habitations. 

Some scholars have moved in the opposite direction. 
Instead of regarding the principles laid down in the Ser- 
mon on the Mount as applicable, in the judgment of Jesus, 
only in the future condition of things, they have main- 
tained that he must have formulated them in view of the 
transitoriness of present conditions, for guidance until 
the kingdom of heaven should come. Why should his 

1 Matth., xxv, 14 ff . ; Luke, xix, 11 ff. 

2 Luke, xvi, 1 ff . 



308 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

disciples take vengeance themselves or seek to secure it 
through courts, bind themselves by oaths, care for places 
of honor and authority, get married or obtain divorce, 
keep their possessions or seek to increase them, when the 
world is so soon to come to an end, and God himself will 
avenge his own, give them to sit upon thrones ju<L 
the twelve tribes of Israel, and restore to them manifold 
the things they have abandnii'-d? This view has certain 
advantaj/' s. | not need to twist the words 

out of their natural moaning, and it puts into relief the 
eschatological temper that cu 1 among 

und expression in at 
ances ascribed to him in the But it fails to do 

just ice to those sayii. i that prow their tT'-nuineneas 

most convincingly by b-ing in contrast with this prevail- 
ing apocalyptic mood. 

His most char i do not indicate a 

view of the kingdom of heaven thai could have led him 
to share the ordinary hopes for - and 

wealth, when the good time should some, while preaching 
■ temporary ethi nunciation as a preparation 

for it. The parables of the Sower. 1 the Leaven, 1 and the 
Mustard- iony of a wholly different idea. 

The ripe eorn in the I uit-laden 

branches only reveal the nature of the seed that was sown 
in the ground. The piece of bav.n that was put int 
lump has not changed in character by % the 

whole. The old continues side b until 

the former finally d though! i* found in 

the parable of tl. in that of the leaven. 

The good and the bad cannot b until at the 

end of the process the latter are eliminated. The r 
of God, at first invisible, like tl 
comes gradually manifest in its transforming like 

1 UattK, xiii, 1 ff. and parallels. 

*Matth.. xiii, 33. 

>Matth.. xiii, 51, 

•Matth.. xiii, 47 ff. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 309 

the plant that puts forth first the stalk, then the blade, 
and then the ear in the blade. 1 It exists among men be- 
fore it is seen and recognized as a new social order, and 
it continues after that to reveal its nature in undreamed 
beauty of blossom and sweetness of fruitage. It is in 
harmony with this, when Jesus declares that the kingdom 
of heaven cometh not with observation, nor shall they say, 
"Lo, here! or Lo, there! for the kingdom of heaven is 
within you. ,,2 If the Aramaic term med by Jesus was 
binetiru. his meaning seems to have been: the kingdom 
does not come in such a manner that men may lie in wait 
and watch for its appearance, and say, "Here it is," or 
11 There it is." If he said beffawwekon, it can only have 
meant "within you." But even if he said bnukon, 
"among you," the context makes it abundantly plain that 
he meant that it was a 1 1 1 « ► 1 1 -_r men in such a manner that it 
could not be seen and located, but existed as an inn 
reality, in their li\ 
It is not by leveling down the ethical demands of J< 

to the conventional id. -as of any aL r >\ nor by Construing 
them as temporary counsels of perfection, by which a 
handful of men might be prepared Tor a presently ex- 
pected end of the world, that we gain a conception of the 
real grandeur of that ideal which tired his soul with 
enthusiasm, and made his life what it was. When it is 
said that his ideal of a better social order is an idle dream, 
and that his type of righteousness is impracticable under 
such conditions as prevail in the world, two facts are over- 
looked. No dream of social righteousness can justly be 
regarded as idle that has contributed so much to the 
moral progress of the world as this hope of the growing 
kingdom of heaven on earth has already done. And be- 
fore it is pronounced impracticable, an application of its 

1 Marie, for, 26-29. 
3 Luke, xvii, 20, 21. 

• This passage is well treated in Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1898, p. 
116 ff. 



310 THE PKOPHET OF NAZARETH 

fundamental principles should be tried on a larger scale 
than has hitherto been the case. 

Jesus does not seem to have denned his conception of 
the Father in heaven in any other way than he defined 
his idea of the kingdom of heaven. Chiefly by parables 
to the multitudes, and by short pithy sayings to his dis- 
ciples, he intimated what he thought concerning God, 
man's relation to him, and the proper manner of serving 
him. His language, when speaking of these subjects, 
is simple and unconventional, . jnity and 

beauty. There are abui pend- 

ent thinking, but no of familiarity with the 

terminology of the philosophical 

tions discussed by them. The idea of the 1 <>d of 

God, even in an ethical sense, existed 1".' the 

time of . I ad had found tin- Jew- 

ish literature The mind "l dwelt on 

its natural implications Afl in the i 

concern was about the rectitude of the inner disposition, 
so in the eai ■<! the question of 1: attitude 

occupied him most He did not doubt his unity, eternity, 
omniscience and oinnip But was he thi 

Being in whom his ideal of rectitude, truth within and 
adequate manifestation, justice and love in insepe 
union, was absolute reality? In our ignorance of the 
early life of Jesus, we cannot deny thai there may have 
been a period of storm and stress when this D agi- 

\ tated his soul, as it had once racked the mind of the aut 
of Job. There are in his teaching those frank admissions, 
those resolute retrenchments, those bold deviations from 
current views, that generally betoken eont: 11 as 

reflection. Was it without disenehantment 
for the first time how the wicked man's field UOUTtB 
while the parched ground of some God-fearing widow 
refused to yield bread for her starving little ones? Could 
he always behold without flinching how some m 
tower buried beneath its falling mam men and 

innocent children, and how the life of some rich hypocrite 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 311 

passed on peacefully to its end without accidents to ter- 
rify or bereavements to make sad? However that may 
have been, in his public ministry he is animated by a 
faith not in need of blinking the facts of existence that 
belie the current doctrine of retribution, because it rests 
upon the perception of a higher law of compensation. 

In his parables of the Lost Coin, 1 the Lost Sheep, 2 and 
the Lost Son, 3 Jesus expressed most clearly his conviction 
that active love is the world-conquering and world-trans- 
forming power. There is nothing so insignificant, there 
is nothing so bad, that Divine Love does not care for it 
and cannot redeem it. The impartiality with which the 
sun shines and the rain falls is not a sign of indifference to 
moral cosmic ends, but only an indication that the impar- 
tial Divine Love purines these ends without necessary 
regard to the impel-; tern of rewards and punish- 

ments with which human justice seeks to operate. It is 
more conducive to the moral perfection of the human race 
to let the sun shine and the rain fall without discrimi- 
nation according to human merit and demerit than it 
would be to allow the sun to shine and the rain to fall only 
on the good man's field. No system of external rewards 
and punishments can make men righteous. 4 The actual 
divine method works for righteousness. It is intrinsically 
right, not only in view of the ultimate product, but also 
at every point of its administration. For the law of 
cause and effect operates unceasingly. In spite of appear- 
ances, the divine book-keeping is very exact. The good 
rewards itself, and the evil is its own punishment; the 
effect inheres in the act and engenders a retribution that is 
never unjust or unmerciful. The man who prays in 
public and is seen of men has his reward. 8 He who gains 

l Luke, xv, 8-10. 

*Luke, xv, 3-7. 

• Luke, xv, 11 ff. 

*Cf. Luke, xvii, 10. The parable of the workers in the vineyard, 
Matth., xx, 1-16, also shows this connection of life and work, not 
dominated by the ordinary ideas of retribution. 

6 Matth., vi, 5. 



312 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

the world is rewarded by what he gains. Had he sought 
a good character or spiritual joy, these would have been 
his. His loss is not less real, because he fails to appreciate 
that of which he has deprived himself. 

This view rendered it possible for Jesus to conceive of 
the Heavenly Father as continuing to be the God of 
those who by his power are raised from the dead, while 
allowing others to return to their dust without a r 
rection. 1 This was no arbitrary act of God. In tho- 
to survive the life-giving power of God app r o pr i ated by 
living in harmony with his supreme law of love brought 
about its own result; as long as they were living his love 
sought the lost children. 

Jesus regarded God as the I not only of the Jews, 

but of the Samaritans and the Gent . not on! 

the good but of the bad as well. That the Israelii 
the sons and daughters of their < tod, was a oonunon notion. 
Hence the members of the nation wen -oth- 

ers, having one father, namely, God The parable of the 
Good Samaritan- teachef that a member of tl 
people is a brother unee he shows i brother's spirit. 
acts as a son of God should. J. -mis took pah 
size the fatherly car I for members <>f other na- 

tions. 3 His parable of the Vineyard* i: 
feared the overthrow of the Jewk ami 1<> 

forward to the establishment of the intin. tion 

that it involved between (;<><! ami a people living ace 
ing to the principles <>f righteousness in which he b 
While he knew that God alw 1 as a father toward 

all men, he also realized that his children both in Israel 
and among the other nations did not always act as sons of 

*Luke, xx, 27-40. "For all live to him" has been recognised by 
many scholars to be a late addition. 

2 Luke, x, 29-37. 

8 LuAt, iv, 25-27, no doubt represents an actual saying of Jesus, 
though Luke has placed it out of its true chronological position. 

Matth., xxi, 33 ff . ; Mark, xii, 1 ff. ; Lul<, xx, 9 ff. It has been 
retouched in all recensions, but no doubt goes back in its original form 
to Jesus. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 313 

God. "If ye who are evil," he said, "know how to give 
good gifts to your children, how much more shall the 
Father in heaven give good things to those who ask." 1 
God cares for his children, though they are evil, better 
than they ever care for their offspring. They should 
therefore seek to be perfect, as their Father in heaven is 
perfect. 2 No honor can be greater than to be called sons 
of God. But he did not single out any class of men, for 
instance his own disciples, as worthy of this title. Still 
less did he suggest that they should call themselves sons 
of God, or children of God, in distinction from their fel- 
low-men. Such a spirit of self-laudation he condemned in 
the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. 3 Least of 
all did he think of applying it to himself exclusively. 
The notion that he called himself "the Son of God," and \ 
spoke of God as "my Father" in distinction from "your 
Father," is based on manifestly late additions to the Syn- 
optic gospels, and free and misleading translations into 
Greek of the original, which did not use the possessive 
pronouns. Nevertheless, it is certain that Jesus derived 
both comfort and confidence from the thought that he 
was a child of the Father in heaven, an object of his love 
and care, an agent for the spread of his truth, a herald of 
his coming kingdom, an interpreter of his holy will, a 
man earnestly endeavoring to live as a son of God. 

Jesus broke with the popular religious cult in regard 
to sacrifices, sabbath-keeping, sacred washings, and the 
distinctions between clean and unclean meat. He also 
turned his criticism against such important matters as 
public prayer, fasting and almsgiving in which piety was 
especially wont to express itself. His fundamental objec- 
tion to public prayer was that it was offered in the wrong 
place. Prayer, in his opinion, should be offered in the 
closet where the fact that a man was praying could not be 

1 Matth., vii, 11. 
2 Matth., v, 48. 
■ Luke, xviii, 9-14. 



314 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

observed by men. 1 The results of such private com- 
munion with God where there was no temptation to con- 
template the effect upon listening human ears, or to spin 
out long addresses, would be manifest in the daily life. 
But he felt that a truly reverent soul mast shrink from lay- 
ing bare its deepest experiences and most urgent needs in 
the embarrassing presence of men. It seemed to him im- 
modest and conducive to untruth and conventional r 
tory abundantly proves that be t in this conten- 

tion. When men pray publicly, there is a decided tend- 
ency to make long speeches, to emphasize a thought by 
repetition or slight variation, and to frame the address 
with a view to its effect upon the audience. Seeing the 
irresistible force of this tend ounseled his dis- 

ciples not to pray in public, and fesj t of long 

habit on their private d< he wan m not to 

use many words, since the Father in heaven knew all I 
needs. The church has paid little or no n to his 

advice, but has vied with the heathen nations both in re- 
gard to the publicity and the length of the prescribed 
prayers. 

The fact that Ji BUI and his disciples did not fast 
aroused unfavorable eritieism. His r.-inarl. I the 

new piece and the old garment and the new wine and the 
old wine-skins- show how utterly foreign t<> his concep- 
tion of religion this i. In th<- Sermon on the 
Mount he advised his disciples to anoint th«-ir heads and 
wash their faces when they t to be seen 
fasting by men. 3 Sack-cloth and sal the reerular 
accompaniments of fasting. The ftp] of a man in 
society dressed as for a festival, with face washed and 
head anointed was quite incongruous with fa ving 
a fast. It would indeed be difficult for him to abstain 
from food without being seen of men to fast. Men fas 
in order to show publicly their sorrow, humility and re- 

1 Matth., vi, 5-8. 
'Matth., ix, 16, 17. 
* Matth., vi, 16-18. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 315 

pentance. Jesus seems to have objected to the custom 
on two grounds. A public display of humility and contri- 
tion appeared to him immodest and absurd, inasmuch as 
humility is already gone when it is professed, and repent- 
ance has not yet been born until it manifests itself in 
righteous conduct. Then a man should seek to bear his 
own burden patiently and calmly, without betraying its 
weight to others who have theirs, and rather add his daily 
contribution to the common fund of joy and contentment 
by which all are sustained. The larger branches of the 
Church have continued the custom, without the slightest 
regard to the warning of Jesus, while some of the Protest- 
and denominations have abandoned the practice but not 
without inventing new forms for the public display of 
contrition and sorrow for sin. 

The Hebrew word for "justice" became in later Juda- 
ism a technical term for "almsgiving." This was not a 
backward step. It was the addition to a noble word of a 
still finer meaning, the supplementing of the idea of 
righteousness by the element of active sympathy. Giving 
to the poor became a part of religion. It was felt to be a 
lending to the Lord, a support of his cause who was the 
f i [end of the poor and the needy, the widow and the 
orphan. A number of causes helped to make it one of 
the most popular religious functions. That God was 
served by the relieving of suffering fellow-men, was an 
idea appealing to the noblest instincts in man. The 
value of this service could be easily seen, and the con- 
sciousness of doing an unmistakably good deed was com- 
forting. Then there was the pleasure of acting as a hu- 
man Providence, of receiving gratitude, of being called 
benefactors, of enjoying popularity, of being gladly seen 
and enthusiastically greeted by men, of exercising a 
power over them apparently not based on violence, of 
having a good reputation and comparative immunity from 
the criticism to which obvious selfishness is always ex- 
posed. Besides, there was the conviction that it is profit- 
able to lend unto the Lord who pays a generous interest. 



316 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 



Jesus strongly believed in the principle of sharing with 
the needy. But he desired the abolition of poverty by 
such a distribution of wealth as would leave no dispro- 
portionate fortunes in private hands. As he realized 
that a great obstacle to such an equitable distribution was 
the doling out of alms publicly in the name of religion by 
men who had no scruples as to the methods by which they 
gained their wealth and, in spite of their ahus-giTing, con- 
tinued to hold on to and increase their large fortunes, he 
directed his attack against the public bestowal of charity, 
the giving of money to the Lord in such a manner as to be 
seen of men. 1 II to hare looked upon the reliev- 

ing of a brother's need in public U That a 

brother was permitted to suffer appeared to his mind as a 
matter to be ashamed of, a conditio] ftHj and 

quietly corrected. That a man should hold in his fa 
the ransom of a thousand lives, and leak to be known by 
men when out of his abundance he threw some crumbs to 
his starving brother 1 to him equally abnormal. 

The Church has too often failed to take this ground and 
encouraged rather than rebuked ostentatious giving to 
the Lord. 

A critical study of the records has shown with increas- 
ing clearness that Jesus had DO sympathy with the idea 
of saying men's souls by sacramental magic. Wh 
weight is given to literary and Orations, 

or attention is limited solely to the restoration of the orig- 
inal text, it becomes certain thai lid not command 
his disciples to baptize the nations. It is equally evident 
that he did not institute any Supper in remembranc 
him. The idea of salvation through any cermony was 
utterly foreign to his mind. Xor is there the slightest 
indication that he believed in salvation through human 
sacrifice or human merits. lie never taught that God 
needed the blood of the Messiah, or his own blood, to sat- 
isfy his justice and to enable him to pardon the sins of 
men. On the contrary, he distinctly taught men to rely 

x Matth., vi, 1-4. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 317 

upon God 's forgiveness, if they were themselves willing to 
forgive, 1 and to assure others of God 's forgiveness without 
any suggestion of a vicarious payment of their debts 
through blood. 2 Nor did he connect salvation with mem- 
bership either in the holy nation or in an organized body 
of believers. To inherit eternal life man must obey the 
great commandments of the Law, 3 love God and men ; he 
must lose his life in humble, faithful, loving service in 
order to find it. That is his doctrine of salvation. A 
Samaritan or a Gentile may thus be saved from selfishness 
as well as a Jew. Nor did Jesus connect salvation in any 
way with belief in himself. There is no teaching of Jesus 
concerning his own person to be gleaned by a careful his- 
torian from the records of his life. What he thought 
about himself is reflected in what he taught concerning 
man, his duties and his privileges, his relation to the 
Father in heaven and his future destiny. 4 

l Matth., vi, 14. 

'Matth., i, 6. 

' Matth., xix, 18 ff. 

* The insight of genius and the sympathy of spiritual kinship often 
travel faster than scientific research, with its cumbersome critical 
apparatus and its exacting method. Leo Tolstoi perceives the thought 
of Jesus more clearly than the majority of exegetes. Among trained 
theologians, .Nathan Sbderblom has a keen sense of the larger bear- 
ings of the moral ideas of Jesus (Jesu Bargsprcdilan, 1899). Well- 
hausen understands that Jesus was a prophet, and has described, with 
fine appreciation, his religious message (Israelitische und Jiidischc 
Geschichte, 3d ed. 1897, p. 374). He fails, however, to do equal jus- 
tice of the ethical teachings of Jesus. From his otherwise so admira- 
ble sketch one would not know that Jesus had taken a definite stand 
against the killing of enemies, the legal principle of punitive jus- 
tice to the ethical teachings of Jesus. From his otherwise so admira- 
autocracy, and the accumulation of private wealth. Yet the attitude 
of Jesus upon these vital questions is likely to interest thoughtful 
men quite as much as his theological views. 



CHAPTER XII 
THE HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 

During his life Jesus exerted a powerful influence 
upon those who came into contact with him through his 
teaching, his works and his spirit. Men were attr.: 
by the beauty and originality of hi 
held by the grandeur and nobility of his thought He 
spoke with tin- authority of ■ prophet, and his message 
concerned thai kingdom of 1. coming 

in Israel eagerly looked. Hii manner of lif«- strength 
the impression of his words. Th( 
spread his Came abroad Y«t he laid up no I i for 

himself. What hf had he with the 

poor. Men were accustomed to asao 

nestness and sincere piety as he showed with I tbits 

and a seal for legal obaerranoea. A man who drank wine 
with tax-gatherers and e 1 with harlol 

sabbath-break in lt and neglected sacred ablutions, while 
he criticised the law of Hoses for not teaching a Fiiffi- 
ciently high type of righteousness, and exemplified m his 
conduct the moral principles he taught, could not fail to 
be observed by man;. more than anythii 

said or did, it was the charm of his personality tl 
men to him. Whether they understood | r not, 

whether they were able to share his - not, 

whether they followed him a day or a year, they could not 
escape from his spirit. His disciples left him and fled on 
the last night of his life. Rut hifl fch impressed 

them perchance as deeply as the women who stood afar 
off and heard his death-cry. "Those who loved him at 
the first did not cease to love him." 1 lie had been I 

1 Josephus, Ant., xviii. 64. The passage is spurious, but the senti- 
ment is true. 

818 



THE HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 319 

leader while he lived. He continued to occupy their 
thoughts and to be the directing force in their lives after 
he was dead. 

The spell of his spirit was upon his disciples. His 
aphorisms, his parables, his answers to captious ques- 
tions, could not be forgotten. The horrors of his death 
could not efface the memories of his life. They clustered 
about the hills of Galilee and its blue lake. Here he had 
spoken, with manly courage to those in high station, with 
gentle sympathy to earth's little ones, proclaiming good 
tidings to the poor. Here he had lived his simple and un- 
selfish life, healing the sick, helping the needy, comfort- 
ing the sad of heart, befriending the outcast, and bringing 
very near to all the kingdom of their hope. Here they 
had walked with him and cherished in secret the convic- 
tion that it was he who should redeem Israel. How far it 
would have been possible for BUCfa a purely spiritual im- 
pression to maintain its.'U* and to transmit to later genera- 
tions an attitude of loyalty to him and to his cause, is a 
question that cannot be answered. If Jesus had lived in 
the days of Jeremiah, his disciples would not have looked 
for his return upon the clouds of heaven, or believed that 
he had been raised from the dead, since the necessary con- 
ditions, the hope of a Messiah and the doctrine of a resur- 
rection, did not then exist. But the fall of Jerusalem 
would have been likely to bring his words to honor, center 
the interest on his personality, produce a more or less re- 
liable biography, and give him a place of equal honor at 
least with the prophet of Anathoth. 

A wider influence was unquestionably secured for Jesus 
through the expectation that he would soon return to 
earth as the Messiah, and the belief that he had been 
raised to life again on the third day after his death. 
Early Christian literature shows how general and intense 
was the hope of his coming to overthrow the Roman em- ) 
pire and to establish the kingdom of heaven. There is 
every reason to believe that the immediate disciples of 
Jesus expected this even to occur in their own generation. 



THE PROPHET OF NAZABETH 



-Already in his life-time they had looked forward to a day 
when he should show himself to Israel as the Messiah. 
At first his death would naturally seem to put a barrier 
against the realization of this hope. But in large and in- 
fluential Jewish circles death was no longer looked upon 
as the end of sentient and self-conscious life. The Persian 
doctrine of a resurrection had been introduced, and the 
land beyond the grave had hern mapped out and become 
familiar ground. As the raising of the dead was no- 
ascribed to the Messiah, and not universally conceived of 
as occurring on the last day, this aet of God'l power m 
be looked for when. si instances se. warrant 

it. Thus Herod Ant! lid to have feared that J 

was none else than John the I : rom the 

dead. 1 At Caesarea Philippi tl. »rt that 

many regarded J Elijah, •' 

miah or some other prophet returned t<> lift - It 

is not strange therefore that the belief should hai 
up that Jemu himself had been ra m the dead. 

The emphasis placed in early Christian writn d the 

statement that his ivsunvction was "a g to the 

Scriptures" 1 shows the influence of supposed Messianic 
prophecies in the Old Testament in s! '.is doctrine.* 

'Matth., xiv, 1. 2; Mark, vi, 14-16; in Luke, ix, 7-9, Herod only 
Avonders who Jesus is, while some of his suite regard him as John the 
Baptist. 

2 Matth., xvi, 14; Marl, viii, 2S (Jeremiah omitted); Lule. ix, 19 
(Jeremiah omitted). Cf. also Mark, vi, 15; Luke, ix, 8. The story 
in MaUh., xxvii, ..-cording to which many saints were raised, 

came forth from their tombs, entered the holy city and appeared to 
many at the time oi oath, shows not less clearly how little 

the thought of a resurrection « toil to th- 

dition "after his resurrection," made to bring the story into har- 
mony with the doctrine that "Chri^ , a d as the 
first-fruits of those that are asleep" (I Cor., xv, 20), is lacking in the 
Evanocliariiun Hierosolymitanum. This seems to have been generally 
overlooked. 

8 I Cor., xv, 4; Acts, ii, 25 ff.; xiii, 34 ff.; John, xx, 9; Luke, I 
46. 

*Ps., xvi, 8-11, is directly quoted. If "he will not suffer his holy 
one to see corruption" was thought : the Messiah, su 



THE HISTOEIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 321 

From the same source manifestly comes the vacillation 
between " three days and three nights" 1 and "on the 
third day. ' ' 2 How early the disciples of Jesus became con- 
vinced that he had been raised from the dead, cannot be 
ascertained with certainty. There seems to be no good 
reason for doubting that the conception goes back to the 
immediate disciples of Jesus. 3 If Romans i and I Corin- 
thians xv, 1-2, 12 ff. were penned by Paul, the oldest docu- 
ments referring to the resurrection of Jesus would have 
been written not more than a quarter of a century after 
his death. 

In spite of the fact that the clouds never bore him back, 
the followers of the prophet of Nazareth continued to 
gaze steadfastly into the sky for the sign of the Son of 
Man. Generations passed and he "delayed his coming ,, ; 
but faith, scorning repeated disenchantments, drew 
strength to meet the bitterest persecutions from the sure 
prophetic word. Only as the fortunes of the Church 

David ha<l been allowed to see corruption, it followed of necessity 
that the Messiah must be raised before the fourth day. For it seems 
to have been commonly held that corruption set in on the fourth day, 
when the face changed, and that the soul then took its final leave of 
the body. Cf. Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth, 20a, and Bereshith 
llabba, 100; it is also to be observed that Lazarus had been in his 
tomb four days in John, xi, 17. The basis of this idea was undoubt- 
edly the occurrence of reanimation in cases of apparent death. Such 
figures of speech as ' ' after two days will he revive us, on the third 
day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him ,, (Hosea, vi, 2), 
current at a time when the idea of a resurrection was quite unknown 
in Israel, clearly go back to this physical phenomenon. Three days 
and three nights would consequently be the utmost limit, if the 
Messiah were not to "see corruption." Matth., xii, 46, shows that 
Jonah's sojourn in the belly of the fish exactly that length of time 
(ii, 1) seemed to some typical of the sojourn of the Messiah in death 
before his resurrection. 

1 John, ii, 19-22 ; Matth., xii, 40. 

2 1 Cor., xv, 4, and other passages. "The third day" is differently 
understood in Matth., xxviii, 1, where Jesus is already risen "late on 
the Sabbath day as the first day of the week drew on, ' ' i. e., Saturday 
night, and in the other accounts where this event takes place the 
next morning. 

8 See Excursus C. 
21 



322 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

changed, did this hope lessen its hold. With the estab- 
lishment of Christianity as the official religion of the 
Roman empire men generally ceased to look for an imme- 
diate return of Jesus to earth, and for I :j ic king- 
dom of a thousand years. The term I .as no loi 
the equivalent of the b; it meant the Son of God 
in a metaphysical sense, tli 1 Logos, the second 
person of the Trinity. As God he was omnipresent; he 
was always Dear to those who called upon him: in the 
eucharist was his real pr was his rep- 
resentative; this Church was the kingdom of God on 
earth; the kingdom of heaven was a celestial r 
whither the faithful member of • .reh passed i 
death to behold his Saviour 
new conception there was no room for the 
and no spiritual demand for it. On the Oth :. the 
belief in the resurrection * be aff- 
by the disillusioning of hi^- *<cep- 
tion of tl Thai the incarnate (iod had risen from 
the dead w;is Less difficult to I 'ban that he had died 
at all, and there was no disposition to examine the ac- 
counts critically. 

The influei . ius in th in whieh th 

ology o\' the Church \ • symbols 

should not he ui 

read, and the strong imp' rsonality 

of Jesus manifest not only in I nting bodies 

that emphasised his humanity, but also in the Catholic 
Church, whose endeavor it v. true hu- 

manity as well as his divinity. Ii an intel- 

lectual curiosity to solve what is at bottom a permanent 
problem of thought that led to the subtle distinction- 
tween komooution and homoiov as this 

would have been. It was quite as much X ] oa] affec- 

tion for Jesus inspired by the portrayal of his life and the 
presentation of his doctrine in the With the 

moral impression of a noble divine personality, who 
stood as the constant object of worship, fear, confidence 



THE HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 323 

and love, there blended the elevating influence of a human 
life that inspired and called for imitation. While in the 
interest of historic truth greater discrimination is needed 
than is usually found in the claims made for Christianity, 
the tendency to account for certain social changes on 
purely economic grounds and to eliminate all spiritual 
forces is apt to lead astray. The manumission of slaves, 
or change from slavery to serfhood, in the Roman empire, 
was no doubt in a large measure due to the diminishing 
supply of slaves and their consequent increase in value 
after the empire had reached its greatest territorial exten- 
sion, as Gibbon and Adam Smith have pointed out; but it 
would be unjust to forget the moral and religions influ- 
ences of Stoic philosophy and of Christianity. It was a 
Stoic, Dio Chrysostomus, 1 who, in the reign of Trajan, 
first declared that slavery is contrary to the laws of na- 
ture. The spirit of i ill brooding over his church 
created a moral disposition that was distinctly favorable 
to the emancipation of the slav< 

Similarly, the great improvement of sexual morality, 
showing itself in purer marital relations and in the con- 
tinence of the monastic life, was to a considerable extent 
the result of causes not connected with the life or teaching 
of Jesus. The ebb and flow of physical life in successive 
generations apparently causes periods of indifference and 
aversion to pleasure to follow periods of over-indulgence 
of the appetites. The Church only inherited the Hebrew 
ideal of chastity, and even the monastic life had one of 
its roots in Judaism, as the communities of Essenes and 
Therapeutae 3 testify. Besides, the attitude of the Stoics 
must be considered. But there can be no question that in 

1 Opera, ed. Emperius, xiv, xv, p. 265 ff. 

'The Deutero Pauline epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and 
Philemon recognize the institution of slavery and consequently insist 
upon the return of fugitive slaves to their masters, but earnestly urge 
kindly treatment and a fraternal spirit. 

3 With Massebieau, Conybeare, Wendiand, Pfleiderer and Bousset, 
the present vrriter considers Be vita cortemplativa as a genuine work 
of Philo. 



324 THE PKOPHET OF NAZABETH 

two directions at least the influence of Jesus was impor- 
tant. He had declared in favor of the indissolubility of 
marriage, and he had exemplified celibacy in his own life 
and apparently commended it for the sake of the king- 
dom of heaven. 

The missionary enterprises and crusades that charac- 
terize the earlier centuries of the Middle Ages were, at 
least in part, due to a sincere desire that Jesus as the 
celestial king should reign over pagans and Muhammadans 
living in rebellion against him and therefore doomed to 
perish. If the interests were often those of the Church 
rather than of Jesus, this distinction was seldom felt by 
the pious missionary or crusader. That, economic causes 
operated in the background, they never dreamed. They 
knew the loyalty of their own hearts to their king in 
heaven, whose law they would impose upon the nations, 
whose tomb they would rescue from the hands of the infi- 
dels, and whose glory they would spread by the words of 
their mouth or the blows of their sword. It is impos- 
sible to recall the names of Columban and Gallus, of Em- 
meran and Rupert, of Boniface and Ansgar, of Cyril and 
Methodius, without realizing how truly this missionary 
zeal could serve the real cause of Jesus. However radic- 
ally opposed to the spirit of the gentle Nazarene the con- 
test for the empire of the world between Christian Rome 
and Muhammadan Baghdad may appear, however absurd 
the combination of a cross on the breast and a sword in 
the hand, and however lamentable the resultant exclusive- 
ness, prejudice, distrust and unnatural relationship be- 
tween two great historic religions, it cannot be questioned 
that the cross very often meant the surrender of worldly 
ambition, wealth and pleasure, the sacrifice of domestic 
happiness, the risk of life, the willing acceptance and 
patient endurance of hardship for the sake of the unseen 
king. The chivalry of the mediaeval knight from which 
our modern treatment of woman so largely is derived can- 
not be regarded as solely a product of Christianity, for 
it has a deep root in the dreamy reverence for woman char- 



THE HISTOEIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 325 

acteristic of our pagan ancestors. Yet it would not have 
become what it was but for the veneration accorded to the 
Virgin Mary; and though this cult ultimately goes back 
to the widespread worship of one or another mother god- 
dess in the Roman empire, it was itself informed by the 
spirit of Jesus. Even the papal contention, that there 
is a sphere of morals and religion in which the consciences 
of men ought not to be subjected to the authority of 
princes or of civil government, reflects a thought of Jesus. 
Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but also to God 
what belongs to God. There are diviner rights than those 
of kings. Unfortunately, papacy itself in its attempt to 
represent Jesus on earth did not follow his leadership in 
disentangling itself from all political ambitions, and in 
leaving conscience free. 

In Francis of Assisi another phase of the influence of 
Jesus comes to view. The man of Nazareth is taken as a 
model to be followed. His life is to be imitated. His man- 
ner of living is to be copied. To be poor as he and de- 
pendent on the gifts of others ; to be unmarried as he and 
continent ; to be homeless as he and walking about among 
men ; to be simple and joyous and brave and earnest as he 
and occupied in doing good— this is to follow Jesus. It is 
a most significant shifting of emphasis from metaphysical 
speculation on his personality, appropriation of his saving 
grace through sacred rites, or outward obedience to his 
commands, to actual reproduction of his life. There is 
much that is external and artificial in this imitation, doing 
violence to individuality. But there is more that is of 
permanent value. For it is in this direction of charac- 
ter influencing character that the truest leadership of 
Jesus is likely to be found. The spiritual kinsmen of 
Francis of Assisi are chiefly to be looked for among the 
mystics. Men like Gerhard Groote, Johann Tauler, 
Thomas a Kempis, are only some of the best known repre- 
sentatives of large groups who before the Reformation 
discerned* with more or less clearness, that the greatest 
service Jesus can render as a leader of the sons of men 



326 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

consists in the moral influence of his spirit and character 
xipon the inner life. 

The three great movements of organized dissent in the 
sixteenth century, the Lutheran, the Zwinglian, and the 
Baptist, reveal in different ways the leadership of Jesus 
acknowledged by them all. Against the prevalent idea 
that man could earn his own salvation by good works hav- 
ing the value of assets to his credit, or purchase it from 
the supererogatory works of other men, or secure it by 
such purchases made on his behalf by friends or relat 
Luther maintained, in accordant- with Paul and A 
tine, that man is justified by faith only, without works, 
through the grace of God. The 4 this faith 

Jesus Christ for whose personality, after tome ) 
he adopted the definition of the Catholic symbols. The 
great importance of this "material principle" of the 
ormation lies in the fact that it removes all priestly m< 
tion between the soul and Christ, makes salvation 
ent solely upon a man's relation to his di vi] mer, 

and does away with the idea that he can merit it by his 
good works. Luther, indeed, did not carry out I 
trine to its natural consequences, inasmuch at 
saving value to infant baptism without a 
appropriation of Christ by faith and, in th< 
eucharist, assumed a communication of the flesh and 
blood of Christ, "in, with and under" Un- 
less of faith. The ''formal principle" wai ition 
of the Bible alone as the supreme authority. In jud 
of canonicity, however, he was inclined to apply th- 
of agreement with the material principle, and to rul< 
such books as Canticles. James, and Revelation. At first 
he enlisted the warm sympathies of the common people. 
But his attitude in siding with the princes in the r. 
ing of the peasants had a tendency to alienate the poorer 
classes. The rulers, however, helped him to realize in a 
measure his ideal of a Christian state, which could serve 
as a bulwark against the aggressions of the papacy, and 
guarantee the permanency of hi mistical refonna- 



THE HISTOKIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 327 

tion. In making the theological faculties at the univer- 
sities guardians of the faith, and placing the young men 
to be educated for the ministry at these centers of varied 
learning, he gave at once authority to the specialist, and 
made provision against an one-sided development. Thus 
Luther labored according to the light he had, and laid 
the foundations better than several generations succeed- 
ing him knew. If he lacked the self-control, the gentle- 
ness of spirit, the catholicity of sympathy, and the depth 
of intuition that some of his fellow-laborers possessed, he 
loved the truth he saw, had the courage of his convictions, 
showed much practical discernment, and sought by all 
means to enhance the power, in state and church, of the 
divinely-human Master whom he served in sincerity. 1 

Zwingli resembled Luther in many respects ; his concep- 
tion of the Christ was similar; his loyalty to Jesus was 
equally marked. But his outlook upon life was broader 
and his spirit freer. This is manifest in his estimate of 
the religious character of Pindar, Plato and Seneca, in his 
assertion that the divine spirit was not limited to Pales- 
tine, and in his conception of the Lord's Supper as simply 
a memorial meal. In the manner of his approach to a 
theological question Luther instinctively felt a spirit dif- 

1 This estimate of Luther 's character remains unchanged after the 
perusal of Denifle 's Luther und das Lutherthum, 1904. There was 
an element of coarseness and sensuality in Luther, accentuated by the 
reaction against an unnatural mode of life. If Protestant theologians 
have been too prone to gloss over certain facts in the life of Luther 
and apologize, on flimsy grounds, for his vulgarity of speech and nar- 
rowness of judgment, Denifle lacks the ability to perceive his real 
greatness, which is more serious. It may be questioned whether, 
without Luther, we should have advanced in four centuries beyond 
Denifle, whose judgment upon Luther reminds of Luther, but has in it 
no promise of larger views. Denifle's charge against Luther that he 
abandoned the monastic ideal and broke his vows will not disturb the 
world. That he abandoned the common people and the cause of social 
progress is a more serious matter. But this was largely due to his 
early training, which rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for him to 
conceive of a state whose members were not from infancy forced to be 
Christians, and Christians of a certain type. 



328 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

ferent from his own. It is in harmony with this general 
attitude that the question of infant baptism seriously dis- 
turbed him, and he seems to have been led to retain the prac- 
tice by considerations of the far-reaching effects upon civil 
society of adopting the Baptist position rather than by 
theological arguments. As he insisted upon a more rad- 
ical reformation of the church service, so he put more 
emphasis upon the reform of social institutions by the 
people itself. While Calvin's LogiesJ mind developed the 
material principle by accentuating the doctrine of pp 
tination and the symbolical character of the ordinances, 
and strengthened the formal principle by an that 

was remarkably objective, yet ipp oeed in 

exhibiting one doctrinal content in all pi 
his activity as a practical reformer showed the same 
tendency to democracy tempered with tl 
can be no question as to the genninenesi of 
see the will of his Master dominant in the life 
tian community. That without tin- use of 1 au- 

thority of Jesus cannot be maintained, is an i: that 

he could not avoid drawing from 1. 

functions of government and the char the church. 1 

But it is significant, in view ol the sobsequ 
ment of political life in the vari< tries affected by 

the Reformation, that [/other and his soil d on 

princes by whose aid tli 
work, and whose authority over their BOhje 

1 The position of authority accorded to Calvin in Geneva seems to 
have caused a confusion from which his mind did not suffer, at least 
to so great an extent, in 15.V2, when he wrote his commentary on 
Seneca's Dc Caritate. In the case of Servetus, his judgment was 
further warped by wounded pride and personal resentment, as his 
own statements unmistakably prove. It would be wrong to hold hia 
age responsible for his lamentable error. Yet the most powerful tra- 
ditions and the strongest currents of thought in that period unques- 
tionably rendered it difficult for him to reach the lofty position of a 
Balthasar Hubmaier. a Hans Denck, or a Sebastian Chateillon, which 
would have prevented him from playing such a disgraceful part in the 
judicial murder of Servetus. The great reformer has certainly a 
right to be judged by his best, and not by his worst. 



THE HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 329 

phasized, while Zwingli, Calvin and their associates leaned 
chiefly on the burghers, and maintained the rights of the 
people against unjust rulers. 

The Baptists, as a rule, rejected both the material and 
the formal principle. Characteristic of the whole move- 
ment were the emphasis upon character and the doctrine 
of "the inner light. " With the current notion of 
"works" as a commodity, with a fixed value on the 
ecclesiastical exchange or in the celestial court, the Bap- 
tists had no sympathy. In fact their leading theologians 
were at pains to remove the remnant of this system of 
salvation by negotiable works of merit. To Denck and 
Tiziano faith did not mean belief in a transference of 
man's guilt to Christ and an imputation of Christ's merits 
to man, but trust in God and obedience to his laws, a con- 
fidence and obedience impressively exemplified by the 
man Jesus of Nazareth. This faith, they held, could never 
exist, or even be conceived, without works. They dis- 
carded all mercantile and forensic views of the atonement, 
and instead of justification as a reward for believing 
preached righteousness of life and works of kindness as 
the natural result of the indwelling principle of love, 
whose value and power may be seen in some lives more 
distinctly than in others, and with especial clearness in 
that of Jesus. According to these thinkers, man is not 
in need of being saved from the devil or from an ever- 
lasting hell, for they did not believe in the existence of 
either, but from selfishness and ignorance. By "the 
inner light' ' Denck understood the direct illumination of 
every human mind, according to its capacity, by the 
indwelling divinity. This light enables man to discern 
the truth in the sacred books or elsewhere. Following it 
holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Spirit, 
and through all ages divine truth continues to be revealed 
to men. By placing the authority of the inner light above 
that of the Scriptures, these early Baptists were naturally 
led to recognize not only the right of private interpreta- 
tion of the Bible, and the consequent diversity of beliefs, 



330 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

but also the propriety of Biblical criticism, and the li ; 
of. prophesying new things. Denck's distinction between 
the permanently valuable and the only temporarily sig- 
nificant in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testa- 
ment, leading him apparently before his death to regret 
that he at one time had attached an abiding importance 
even to adult baptism, is an instructive example. The 
recognition 1 tus of at Least a primary reference 

of the suppof ic prophecies in the Old Testa- 

ment to eontemporaneoxu and personalities is also 

significant. The aeeonnl iliano of Milan, indicat- 

ing that in Baptist circles the anthei urth 

Gospel was denied, the opening eha] I and 

Luke and some chapter! in Mark were r as inter- 

polations, and some of the Pauline writing! were ques- 
tioned, affords another illustration. From the principle 
of the inner light follows also the 

as a local society eomp who have been 

enlightened. Th< 

fore not exclusively caused by the absence of New T 
ment precept or precedent A church thus c<> 

could not be eo-extensive with tl 

It was a spiritual brotherhood, liying in tl 

not of the world. Its aims and purposes 

with the teaching and example Some 01 

ideas such as tl ing the aing of 

with good, war, oath-taking, judging, and private wealth. 
the value of the simple, trustful. 

of a better social order, the kingdom of } n earth, 

were widely adopted among the Ba] 
mony of their enemies, who often ascribed their appal 
virtues to the inscrutable craftiness of Satan, the char- 
acter of their preserved writings, their gentle demeanor 
during lives tilled with severest trials and | ons, 

and the noble courage with which they met the mar- 
death, show how deeply they were intiuenced by his spirit. 
Thus it is possible to observe, in the cas- -eat his- 

toric movement, whose significance 1 i aani- 



THE HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 331 

fest in proportion as the archives of Europe yield up their 
secrets, whether the real leadership of Jesus decreases or 
is enhanced by the recognition of his purely human 
character. 

On the other hand, it was only natural that the Baptist 
position should be felt to be a menace both to church and 
state. At first sight it might appear very harmless that a 
good man prefers tilling his soil to killing his fellows, 
weaving his cloth to wearing the ermine, telling the truth 
to swearing an oath, bearing with patience insult and 
injury to demanding the punishment of his assailant, shar- 
ing his good things with others to heaping up wealth for 
himself, caring for his child to sprinkling it with water, 
loving and imitating Jesus to praising and describing 
him. But if this man should be right, society would be 
wrong in slaying its enemies, condemning its criminals, 
binding its citizens with oaths, bringing its grievances to 
courts, hoarding its treasures, saving its infants by bap- 
tism and its adults by formulas, sending its heretics to 
hell, and promising its saints heaven through the merits 
of the God-man. In reality, his gentle life, in spite of its 
innocent appearance, was a bold challenge hurled at all 
that was high and exalted among men, at the throne and 
the altar, the bench and the cathedra, the knight and the 
bishop, the man of lineage and the man of wealth. The 
challenge was accepted, and in a few decades these quiet 
seekers after a country of their own had been hounded 
to death, burned at the stake, or drowned in deep waters. 
Then, in Gothic cathedrals, amid incense and gold and 
treasures of art, Te Deums were sung, and in houses of 
worship but recently deprived of all emblems or images 
thanks were offered for the salvation of society to the 
man who many centuries ago had himself for the same 
crime been hanged upon a cross. 

It cannot be denied that in the mother church the in- 
fluence of the prophet of Nazareth was in some directions 
preserved and extended through the Society of Jesus. 
Its spiritual discipline, its educational system, and its mis- 



332 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

sionary zeal were not only the most efficient means of re- 
forming the Catholic Church and enhancing the power 
of the papacy, but also became instrumental in making 
the name of Jesus known in distant lands, his life re- 
garded as an example, and his authority recognized with 
unwavering fidelity. Never since the days of the Stoics 
had the Western world seen an order of men exhibiting at 
once such talents and learning and such masterly self- 
control, indifference to outward circumstance and poise 
of character as those who regularly drew their inspiration 
from the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. CI- 
than other reformers the leaden of this soei^ty recognized 
that, if the authority of he paramount o\ 

human life, the training must begin in childhood and 
include the heart and the will as well as the intellect. To 
their missionary work in Asia. Africa and America, 
they brought a Learning, an adaptability, a tact and a de- 
votion, that for a time crowned their labors with re- 
markable success. In some measure this success was no 
doubt due to the method adopted by r . ValiLrnani, 

Ricci and other missionaries of assuming the dress and 
customs of the natives, and of adjusting the ition 

of Christian doctrine to already existing re! leas. 

There is no reason for questioning, on this ground, their 
purpose to bring their eonver: 

teaching of Jesus as they understood it, and tin- readiness 
with which for his sake they Buffered martyrdom 
to their sincerity. But that which \ h of 

this society also constituted its weakness. If 
very existence from the desire of followii^ 
of Jesus and The Imitation of Christ by Thon 
made a missionary of the soldier Ignatius. But while 
absolute obedience to the will of Christ as in: | by 

his apostles or their successors may make ai nza- 

tion very powerful, its members are deprived ree- 

dom of conscience and moral initiative without which 
there can be no healthy religious development. And 
while a facile adaptation of means in themselves ques- 



THE HISTOKIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 333 

tionable to a high end may be fruitful of accomplishment, 
the end itself is apt to become unconsciously lowered and 
the work achieved to receive a taint. 

The inherent weakness and gradual deterioration of the 
Society of Jesus called forth within the Church itself a 
significant protest. Whether or not Cornelius Jansen's 
Augustinus contained in germ the views attributed to him. 
there can be no doubt as to the Calvinistic tendency of 
thought among the Port-Royalists. Of more importance; 
however, were the independence of mind, moral discern- 
ment and spiritual temper of Antoine Arnauld, Jean 
Hamon, Angelique Arnauld and Pierre Nicole, and the 
system of education that trained for the world a Racine 
and a Pascal. Voltaire rightly regarded Nicole's Treat- 
ise on the Means of Preserving Peace with Men 1 as a 
master-piece without an equal in antiquity. Original as 
are the lines of inquiry pursued in this profoundly sig- 
nificant work, the influence of the thought and spirit of 
Jesus is quite unmistakable. 

Whatever the historic connection may have been between 
the radical party of the reformation period and the quiet- 
ists of the seventeenth century, the latter share with the 
former a certain approach to the Roman Catholic position 
on the one hand, and a decided tendency toward ration- 
alism on the other. The radical bias is already visible 
to some extent in Michael Molinos, Madame de Guyon, 
and Jean de Labadie; in the Quakers it becomes more 
marked and of greater practical significance, and in the 
later Pietists it develops into full-fledged rationalism. 
By their emphasis upon grace and good works and a spir- 
itual enlightenment not confined to the authors of the 
Bible, George Fox and William Penn, the Princess Eliza- 
beth and Anna Maria van Schurmann, Jacob Spener, 
August Francke, and their successors drew nearer to the 
Catholic attitude than to Lutheran and Calvinistic prin- 
ciples. In England it was especially the state that felt 

1 Pierre Nicole, Traite des moyens de conserver la paix avec les 
homines in Essais de morale, Paris, 1671. 



334 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 



itself menaced by the men who refused to swear, to "bow 
and scrape," to use the plural pronoun in addressing their 
superiors, and to bear arms. In view of such con- 
which was rightly considered as endai ting 

social institutions, the objection I pie houses" and 

a hired ministry, the distrust of the trinitarian formula 
and all creeds, the r« form as 

as the eucharist, the doctrine of the inm-r light, and the 
inclination to universalism, could only b led as of 

secondary importaner, how I in them* 

In filling its horrible jails with men and who had 

committed no crime, 

against what it felt to be v«ry gn It wil 

at all conscious of the tact that the Quaker! in reality 
followed the Leadership f h> 8 

teachings that had 1" led, but to v. 

he had himself attached great important 

In Germany it was particularly the Lutheran 
that found itself threatened by the ient. 

The opposition to the established clergy and tl 

upon a personal religions ezperl the part <>f the 

religious teacher, the de] »n priv. 

leading to rejection of the creeds and critical treat 
of the Bible, the desire for B broader fellowship of ( 
tian churches regardless of dogma, the indifl 
sacraments and the aeth -rain in:' 

chair and pulpit, made pietism a foe with which the 
church had to cope seriously. In more than one field the 
Pietists signalized an inevitabl ■sal of j,. 

The last began to appear as the first. Gottl nold 1 

depicted the history of the church in such a manner that 
the heretics were justified by their own suppressed \ 
ings, and bore off the palm of victory over the major 
that had condemned and crushed them. In his defense 
of Pietism against the common charge of hostility to cul- 

1 Kttzcrgeschichte, 1700. 



THE HISTOEIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 335 

ture, Dippel 1 subjected what had been regarded as erudi- 
tion to a searching criticism, and with rare insight placed 
by the side of theology, within the sphere of erudite learn- 
ing and liberal arts, jurisprudence and medicine, chemis- 
try, metallurgy and mining, mathematics, industrial arts, 
agriculture, cattle-breeding and horticulture, while dis- 
counting the value to science and society of certain phases 
of theology, philosophy and jurisprudence. Edelmann 2 
sought the value of Christianity and its chief claim to 
the attention of men, not in its alleged supernatural char- 
acter, but in its rationality. Thus the fruit of a long de- 
velopment of thought in England, in which not only the 
cultivators of the natural sciences, the philosophers and 
the deists had participated, but also the theologians and 
apologists whose aim it had been to reconcile reason and 
revelation, was transplanted into German soil. From 
Herrnhut Zinzendorf directed a foreign missionary work, 
not relying on force or diplomacy, and not seeking the 
glory and aggrandizement of a church, but trusting to the 
Spirit and the Scriptures, and undertaken solely in the 
interest of the non-Christian peoples. 

The Quictistic movement had its serious limitations, but 
it was characterized by a strong personal devotion to 
Jesus and his teaching. If, nevertheless, its subjectivity 
inevitably led to a more and more pronounced rational- 
ism, the question naturally arises whether a further de- 
velopment of these radical tendencies would permit the 
continuance at all of such a relation to Jesus. At first 
sight the symbolical interpretation affected by the great 
German philosophers, and widely adopted by theologians, 
would seem to put this in doubt. Carrying out a sugges- 
tion of Spinoza 3 that it is not necessary to know Christ 
according to the flesh, but that no man can be saved with- 
out a knowledge of the eternal Son of God, the divine 

1 Weg-Weiser sum verlohrnen Licht und Becht, etc., durch Christi- 
anum Democritum, 1704, Vorrede. 

2 Die GottlichJceit der Vernunft, 1740. 

8 Epistola XXI, Hagae, in Nov., 1675, ed. Bruder, II, 195. 



336 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

wisdom manifesting itself everywhere but especially in 
Jesus Christ, Kant 1 drew a distinction between the his- 
toric Jesus and the archetypal, ideal man. According to 
him, the idea of a perfect humanity which is present with 
God from all eternity stands before the consciousne- 
man as an ideal which it is his moral duty to follow. 
Though it is possible that this ideal has once been real- 
ized, faith does not depend upon this possibility ; and if in 
Jesus the divine idea became a reality, it was not through 
a supernatural birth or other miracles, but through a life 
in harmony with the divine pattern. Horst 2 looked upon 
the narratives of the virgin birth, the mirael 
rection and the ascension, not as hi it as poetry, 

setting forth an ideally conceived humanity, without the 
aid of which Jesus could not have b it of the 

common lot into an ideal attained, and y-t again possible 
to attain. Hegel's theology shows the same I 
ward symbolism. When h ^ts that the human 

being who manifests the truth that I and man 

is divine might be said to have the divine Spirit for his 
father and a human mother, inasmuch as he unites into 
one the transcendent divine nature and 
human self, it is evident that he fcrai he language 

of mythology into the langOl ailosophy, saerir 

the historical character of the virgin birth. An i 
treatment of the resurrection reveals the same peculiari- 
ties. But as his doctrine of the historical development of 
nations could not fail to direct attention to the diftV 
of assuming a fixed ideal of humani: lie possi- 

bility of its realization in an individual, it is not strange 
that, in an age strongly influenced by cosmopolitan ideas, 
the thought should arise and win favor that the true 
Christ, the real Son of God. to whom alone the doctrines 
deduced from the gospel can be applied, is the human race. 
Humanity is the child of the invisible father, t! 

1 Die Religion innerhalb der Gremen der blo**en rernitnft, 1793, ed. 

Hortenstein, VI, 156. 217. 227 a/. 

2 Museutn fur Kehgionstrissenschaft. 1S04. p. 755. 



THE HISTOKIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 337 

and the visible mother, nature; it is the wonder-worker 
through whose power nature is gradually subdued and 
made subservient to the Spirit ; it is sinless inasmuch as no 
blame can be attached to the general course of historic 
development or to the race as a whole, but only to the 
individual; it dies, arises from the dead and ascends to 
heaven, in that the natural yields to the spiritual, the out- 
ward separation of nations and classes ceases in the higher 
unity of the race, and the mortal is thus swallowed up in 
immortality. The man who believes in this Christ, and in 
sincere faith lives and dies for humanity, is saved. 1 

But whether the term " Christ* ' was used to designate 
the ideal human personality, or the human race in its 
gradual realization of its ideal, the distinction between 
the Jesus of history and the Christ of the creeds would 
apparently tend to eliminate the significance of the for- 
mer. This, however, was not the case. As the miraculous 
element disappeared from the life of Jesus, his teaching 
and example claimed more attention. There was, indeed, 
a marked disposition to reduce his teaching to the level 
of the generally accepted moral maxims of the day. Yet 
these were themselves in a large measure the product oi 
his influence, and were in advance of the ordinary conduct 
of men. The fact that his life was relieved of its miracu- 
lous features also rendered his virtues more real, and fos- 
tered a desire to emulate them, while emphasis upon the 
duty of following the highest ideal, whether it had ever 
been realized or not, removed the anxiety to produce a 
mere outward copy of his life. 

It cannot be denied that these concepts of ideal hu- 
manity suffered from a certain artificiality. The ideal 
that one man should seek to realize can obviously not be 
identical with that which another man should set before 
himself. Beautiful and significant as the myths are that 
cluster about the life of Jesus in the gospels, they do not 

*Such ideas are found in the first edition of Strauss 's Leben Jesu, 
1835, in the Leichtfassliche Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu von Dr. 
Strauss, Zurich, 1841, and elsewhere. 



338 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

naturally lend themselves as terms for the description of 
the collective life of man on earth. Already the descrip- 
tion of the church as a collective Christ in I Cor. xii, 12, 
and in Augustine's famous comment, Totu us, caput 

et membra, threatened to deprive the term of its natural 
connotation, but it at I ted an ideal BOC 

Applied to the human race, it neither indicated a tran- 
scendent human personality n<»r a nobler form of social 
life, but the actual course of human ! it its 

upward tendency. If the welding together ol 
nam< and Christ, had originally c -(log- 

ical development entirely foreign to the thought of the 
Galilean prophet, their drifting aparl i to signalize 

a new growth of Christologic illation. But though 

the symbolical interpretation of Biblical 1. and 

ecclesiastical terms conveniently served to hide 
thought, and to disguise its disl the acc( 

standards of faith, it was I relief alike to the inquiring 
intellect and the reli jht back 

from vague abstractions t<> tin- 1 rical 

criticism. The lon«_ r and painstaking in car- 

ried on with ever increasing i. a keen 

and cultivated historic - ing religious 

appreciation, have not been in vain. 

Much is left to be done; many j -> still aw 

satisfactory solution, and many h Inns ha 

as knowledge has advanced; not a tew q 
importance are still subject to s<-ri<»us debate aim ■ 
pendent and competenl inveatigal ~*oric 

research will, in all probability. q. But 

there is an unmistakable dri inion to 

certain conclusions. After a very thor :;l' criti- 

cism that has taken nothing for 1. but I 

tiously examined everything within 
possible to-day to state, with M 
Nazareth once lived among men. spproximal d he 

lived, what were some oi' the external circumai I his 

life, what was the general trend of 1 how his 



THE HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 339 

personality affected different classes, and how he came to 
his death. Out of the mists of tradition enveloping him his 
majestic figure rises and stands out in bold relief against 
the background of his time. All fair-minded men will 
grant that he is worthy of respectful attention, admira- 
tion, and love. Those who have earnestly sought to be- 
come acquainted with him, allowing his thought to influ- 
ence theirs, his manner of life to inspire them, and his 
spirit to touch their hearts, will gladly confess that they 
have found in this son of man something that the Christ 
of the creeds could not give, that to them the old con- 
ception, with all its splendor, is no longer glorious be- 
cause of the surpassing glory of the new. As they look 
back over the centuries that have passed since his death, 
it is possible for them to trace to some extent the influence 
of this real, historical personality, obscured but never 
quite concealed by tradition, alongside with that of the 
fictitious personality created by the identification of Jesus 
with the Jewish Messiah and the Divine Logos. The for- 
mer seems to them to have been more valuable in the past, 
and to hold more promise for the future. 



CHAPTER XIII 



THE PRESENT PROBLEM 



Undoubtedly, the traditional conception of Jesus will long 
continue in the world, and through it his power will h 
as of yore. There seems to be no reason for expecting a 
very marked change of attitude either in the Roman or in 
the Greek Catholic Church on matters of doctrine that are 
deemed of fundamental importance, and are closely con- 
nected with the cult. Hut while the doctrinal system may 
be left substantially intact, tin D ■ alread 

work, especially in the Roman Catholic Church, that cannot 
fail to bring about noteworthy modifications of intellectual 
attitude and spiritual temper. Tic increasing demand for 
advanced education, and the difficulty of COO j with 

well-equipped Protestant institutions of learning, will make 
it a matter of growing concern that Catholic scholarship 
shall be of the highest order, in course of time it must 
become apparent to those who have the welfare of the 
Church at heart that the 

ment of SUCh a scholarship is the bias g ::iind 

by tin 1 assumption that in some important fields of inquiry 
conclusions arc not to be drawn from the facts, but facts 
are to be interpreted in harmony with tradition: that truth 
is not to be sought, but certain statements are to be accepted 
as truth without critical examination and defended as such. 
In order not to lose its hold upon the young ai. stige 

in the world, the Roman Catholic Church will be obliged to 
grant, in ever increasing measure, freedom of invest icration 
and of academic teaching, and to tolerate a more 
divergence of opinion among its scholars. The constant 
growth o\' popular self-government mo I the Church 

iu two ways, by gradually depriving it of all financial I 

■MO 



THE PRESENT PROBLEM 34l 

port and special favors by the state, and by extending the 
scope of local and individual initiative and freedom of 
action. The religious mysticism nurtured by the beauty 
and suggestiveness of an elaborate ritual will surely lead 
contemplative minds again and again into new paths, as 
they seek in the depths of their own consciousness for more 
immediate communion with the divine. The growing ac- 
quaintance among the Catholic laity with translations of the 
Bible, and on the part of the clergy 1 w T ith Biblical criticism 
must also be assigned great importance. It is to be ex- 
pected that the Catholic Church, living in the midst of vast 
democracies on equal terms with other religious bodies, un- 
able and unwilling to undertake the forcible suppression of 
what it still deems heresy, will show its marvelous power of 
adaptation by directing its forces of religious sentiment and 
energy to the amelioration of human conditions and the ele- 
vation of moral standards, thus seeking by its life to prove 
its doctrine all divine. In so far it will reveal the influence 
for good of that son of man whom it continues to worship 
as a god. 

In respect to dogmatic stability the condition of the 
Protestant churches is more precarious. The collective 
creed, whether expressed in officially adopted formulas, or 
defined by virtual agreement without written statements, is 
more exposed to the influence of private opinion. Symbols 
are revised, made of no effect by a liberal construction, or 
set aside completely. The Bible is put into the hands of 
everybody ; the right of private interpretation is recognized 
at least in principle ; a considerable measure of freedom is 
granted to theological teachers to adopt scientific methods 
in their work, and to follow the dictates of their conscience. 
Even the more conservative denominations are drifting 
away from the old doctrinal landmarks. A secular educa- 
tion, based throughout upon a conception of the world in 

* The case of Abbe Loisy is not as isolated as it appears to many 
Protestants. There are not a few Catholic scholars who have adopted 
the main positions of modern Biblical criticism; and their number 
will increase. 



342 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

general and of human history in particular, totally different 
from that of Hebrew and Christian antiquity, affects uncon- 
sciously the mental attitude of the laity, and the higher 
theological education of the clergy inclines to liberalism just 
in proportion as it is thorough and efficient. In the great 
universities of Europe and America and the leading theo- 
logical schools there is not a single teacher of commanding 
scholarship who still adheres to the traditional view of the 
Old Testament. The Line of cl<-av. hose inclined 

to a more radical criticism and those satisfied with removing 
the most obvious errors of tradition runs horizontally 
through all denominations. In the field I :nent 

interpretation, the situation is ini icwhat d 

Canons of literary and historical criticism universally recog- 
nized by students of the Israel are 
wholly disregarded, or followed fa 

inconsistently, or adopted as a matter of c lally 

eminent scholars. This difference in the : the 

two parts of the Bible is also more marked in i and 

America than on the continent of Europe. Tl. nany 

indications, however, that the time is at hand 1 same 

methods shall generally he applied by Protestant scholars 
to early Christian Literature :>tures. 

Nevert! i much significance must not be assigned 

to this trend of theological teaehiii'_r. Th» : prac- 

tical activities of the church that tend to pre* 
of thought vanishing from the 

ligious services, with their reeita:ie.n -id unex- 

plained Scriptures, their doctrinal hymns and 
prayers, their sacraments and serine: d to 

create a conservative mood, and t<» cheek the pro gre s s of re- 
ligious thought. The various ring 
about a religious decision early in lii .: im- 
portance. The Sunday School, though name, 
of religious instruction, which might profitably be much 
wider, to Biblical for the most pari wholly 
rant of modern methods of interpretation. By 
in churches practising infant baptism, by the corresponding 



THE PRESENT PROBLEM 343 

ceremony of baptizing Sunday School children practised by 
the Baptist churches, by Young People's Unions, Epworth 
Leagues and Christian Endeavor societies with their curious 
pledges exacted of everybody to talk in every meeting, the 
consent of the young to certain forms of belief is sought, 
and the adoption of certain stereotyped formulas of confes- 
sion is encouraged, while the minds are still immature. 
Even such laudable endeavors to unite Christians of all de- 
nominations for common work as the Evangelical Alliance, 
the Federations of Churches and the Young Men's Chris- 
tian Association have sought a doctrinal basis of fellowship, 
and in emphasizing what seemed essential without really 
being so have excluded Unitarian Christians on the one hand 
and Catholic Christians on the other. The foreign missions 
undertaken by the Protestant churches have grown out of a 
zeal which in some respects has not been according to wis- 
dom, in so far as it has aimed, as enlightened missionaries 
do not now aim, to saw the souk of the heathen from ever- 
lasting tortures in hell by an acceptance of the Christian 
faith, has attempted to rid them of their ancestral religion, 
root and branch, as of a wholly unclean thing, and has 
sought to substitute for it the tenets and practices of some 
Christian sect, as though these alone had a right to a place 
in the religious life of man. 

Such obvious intellectual limitations will lead no discrim- 
inating observer to underestimate the value of the pulpit, 
the Sunday School, the unions of Christian workers, or 
foreign missions. The world owes much to the faithful and 
unselfish labors of a long succession of clergymen whose 
names have gone into oblivion, but whose ministry has been 
a blessing to their fellows. Men of English speech will al- 
ways recall with gratitude, according as one type or another 
more strongly appeals to them, such preachers as Knox and 
Wesley, Edwards and Finney, Channing and Parker, 
Maurice and Robertson, Moody and Spurgeon, Beecher and 
Brooks. In a society increasingly jealous of all undue sec- 
tarian influences on the common schools, it has been the duty 
of the church to provide religious instruction for the young, 



344 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

and the work of Robert Raikes, carried on by men and 
women sincerely devoted to the spiritual welfare of the 
children, has been a means of saving many lives from moral 
ruin and of developing many noble characters. Since the 
days when the first Moravian missions were established one 
denomination after another has sent out some of its noblest 
sons, men distinguished for piety, learning and character, to 
conquer the heathen world for Christ ; and if they have 
made comparatively few converts from among the educated 
adherents of the various ethnic faiths, their success among 
the outcasts of India, the hill-tribes of Burmah and Siam, 
the cannibals of the Pacific islands would be worth every 
sacrifice, even if it were less apparent than it is, that 
ever Protestant missions have gone all strata of society have 
been benefited by the in troduction of -rms, im- 

proved methods of work, popular education, rational 1 
cine and surgery, a higher condition for woman, and a bet- 
ter regulated domestic life. The names of Willi;; 
and Adoniram Judson, of Robert Moflfatt and David Liv- 
ingstone will live as Long as mankind shall cherish the mem- 
ory of its great fa Nor is t! -ssion of 
great missionaries likely to end The chureh understands 
as well as the state the value of a war upon a common 
enemy in drawing attention from internal eonditions; and 
the more spiritual the m more eai- 
will men of noble parts enlist in the ran' hoice 
difficult at home between a fl roo d hoary with aire and a 
young science claiming jurisdiction in the name of reason, 
between a venerable and elaborate eult and a simple and 
spontaneous worship, between the ease of an establish- 
maintained by the special favors of V. and the 
cariousness of an independent e demanded by jus- 
tice, between building up an organization with the as- 
sistance and in the interest of the rich or preaching the pood 
news of a better social order to the poor! Let the moral 
and material condition of the lower races be made the bask 
of appeal, the best results already achieved the inspiration 
for further efforts, the proclamation of the g n its 



THE PRESENT PROBLEM 345 

greatest purity to all the nations a matter of honor, an intel- 
ligent cooperation with the native forms of religious life 
instead of indiscriminate condemnation the method adopted, 
and love of Jesus and his cause the controlling motive, and 
there can be no doubt that vast forces of spiritual energy- 
pent up in the Protestant churches may yet contribute to 
the uplifting of mankind in a missionary movement of un- 
paralleled proportions. Thus the leadership of Jesus has 
not only maintained itself in various ways in the intel- 
lectually freest part of the Christian church, but promises 
to become more real than ever. 

The most important question, however, confronting the 
thoughtful observer is not whether the influence of Jesus 
will continue to manifest itself more or less in the accus- 
tomed fashion within churches that, even if they were 
united, would include only a fraction of the whole popula- 
tion, but what attitude will be taken to him and his teaching 
by that large and increasing part of society which has 
drifted away from, or cannot be brought under, the influ- 
ence of the church. In so far as this estrangement may be 
caused by moral perversity, a frivolous temper, or indiffer- 
ence to all higher interests, it does not yet present a real 
problem, as the church may reasonably hope for an ally in 
the awakened conscience and the sobered mind. Far more 
serious is the aspect of the case, when it is observed what the 
great agencies are that lead minds away from the tutelage 
of the church, or prevent them from accepting it. Chief 
of these are science, philosophy, art, and social idealism. 
The modern estimate of the universe, built up by careful 
observation of innumerable facts by a host of especially 
trained investigators, is fundamentally different from that 
reflected in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. It will 
no doubt itself be greatly modified by future discoveries. 
But the change can by no possibility be in the direction of 
the views once left behind, because palpably based on crude 
impressions and unwarranted generalizations. There is not 
the slightest probability that the scientific world will ever 
return to the belief in miracles. The geologic ages will not 



346 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

be wiped out of existence. The devil will never be raised 
from the dead. The physician of the future is not likely to 
revert to the theory of demoniacal possession or the prac- 
tice of exorcism. Jurisprudence will continue to take 
cognizance of the Jewish legislation only as an important 
and suggestive chapter in the history of law. Theology 
itself can vindicate its position as the science of the relig- 
ious phenomena of man's life only by adopting the com- 
parative method, and by critically sifting its material. The 
former implies that the religious ideas and practic- 
different peoples and differeir side by side, 

examined without prejudice, and judged with impartiality, 
while the latter involves a thorough textual, literary, and 
historical criticism of whatever sacred book may be studied. 
The various branches of science are to-day becoming known 
in ever widening circles, and the confidence in scientific 
methods is steadily increasing. Not only is this the case in 
Europe, America and Australia, but also in India, Japan 
and China. Thousands of scientific text-books are accom- 
plishing a missionary work in the midst of the old civiliza- 
tions of Eastern Asia that can never be undone by any 
church. 

The tendency of science to empl y of 

law and the unity of nature has furnished I fresh impulse 
to philosophic speculation, and India has taken her place by 
the side of Greece as a t earlier of dialectics. In its search 
for ultimate reality, philosophy is almost inevitably led 
to some form of monism. Materialism is apparently the 
simplest of these forms. But when the behavior of matter 
is carefully observed, it becomes manifest that it is not what 
it seems. The qualities that are p er ce iv ed by the senses are 
recognized as not belonging to the essene type of 

idealism is therefore most prevalent among philosophers. 
If matter is but an appearance, the substance is supposed to 
be mind, either as thinking subject, or as pleroma of thou 
or as both. Thus Berkeley, Piehte, and Sehelling in his 
earlier period conceived of essential reality as a thinking 
subject; Hegel regarded it as the unity of thinker and 



THE PEESENT PROBLEM 347 

thought ; and Bostrom considered it as a system of personal 
ideas. Between the two positions that matter only exists, 
while thought is one of its products, and that mind only 
exists, while matter is nothing but a semblance, there seems 
to be room for other views. Kant was unwilling to admit 
that ultimate reality is dependent upon that action of the 
conscious subject which is reflected in the order of the 
phenomenal world. Schelling in his later years emphasized 
will as the realizing factor in opposition to thought, and 
suggested an obscure, unconscious ground within the divine 
being. From this position it is not as far as has been sup- 
posed to that of Schopenhauer, who conceived of the world 
as will and idea, or that of Hartmann, who looks upon the 
world-soul as unconscious but generating consciousness by 
the emancipation of the idea from the will. 

The original cast given in these systems of thought by 
fertile and vigorous German minds to the age-long en- 
deavors of philosophy to solve the riddle of existence should 
not be discounted. But the influence not only of Greek but 
also of Indian speculation is unmistakable. When the 
great Greek thinkers who for centuries had moulded the out- 
ward forms of men 's reasoning in Christendom were at last 
permitted to affect the substance itself, the natural result 
was a certain similarity of the new structures to the cre- 
ations of those ancient master-builders. A fresh and unex- 
pected impetus came from the East when the philosophical 
systems of India, antedating those of Greece, became known 
in Europe. First came Brahmanism, then Buddhism. In 
the former, the place of the vanished gods is taken by a liv- 
ing universe, whose substance is spirit, and whose form is 
an illusion. In Buddhism the gods disappear altogether, 
and leave a world that is realized by the will to be, and from 
whose evil escape can come only by cessation of desire. 
The subtle philosophy of Bhagavadgita and the Upanishads 
found a response not only in Germany but also in America, 
where Emerson became the exponent of a transcendental 
idealism profoundly influenced by these works. In 
Schopenhauer and Hartmann the keener criticism of reality 



348 THE PROPHET OF XAZAEETH 

characteristic of Buddhism seems to find its counterpart, 
familiarity with this type of Oriental thought is unquestion- 
able, and Hartmann \s hope for ' ' the final redemption from 
the misery of volition and existence into the painlessness 
of non- volition and non-existence" exactly expresses Gau- 
tama's. This earnest search for the truth is no mere idle 
speculation. An ever increasing number of men and 
women are convinced that no advance in our knowledge of 
ultimate reality can be made except by comprehensive and 
accurate observation of nature, and a careful study of its 
reflection in the consciousness of man. To them the deistic 
idea of an extra-cosmic divin ng before 

the universe, creating it out of nothiiiLr, ruling it from with- 
out, and destroying it at will, is quite in* Me. The 
serious question with them concerns the essential character 
of nature, whether its substance is wholly conscious or only 
partially so, whether its infinite, eternal and exhaustless 
energy, in every moment and I point, waits on an in- 
telligent design, or consciousness and - ruination are 
only its incidental fruitage, and whetlm some of the indi- 
vidual manifestations of this not pre- 
serve the continuity of consciousness in spite of apparent 
disintegration. And upon their ontology they build more 
or less consciously and consistently their theory of ethics 
and their principles of condu 

In modern life, art commands an absorbing interent. 
With the increase and wider distribution of wealth archi- 
tecture has become the concern of every ntfe anci- 
pated from conventional I, it hai 
combinations and pleasing varieties. I ntluenced un- 
consciously, but therefore none the less really, by the char- 
acter of the home in which he resides. lie thinks and 
differently in a Gothic cathedral from what I :i the 
auditorium of a modern church. Painting and cognate 
forms of artistic representation have become potent and 
significant factors. When the predominance of ecclesiasti- 
cal subjects ceased, painters began to draw their nn 
from a wider range. Landscapes, animal I raits, do- 



THE PRESENT PROBLEM 349 

mestic scenes, historic events attracted their attention. 
Through the engraver, the photographer and the printing- 
press, artistic productions have found their way into the 
humblest homes. Interest thus centers everywhere upon 
works not immediately suggestive of religion. Music finds 
a growing number of passionate lovers. To those whose 
ears are attuned to harmonies of sound earth holds few de- 
lights equal to those that a Bach, a Beethoven, or a Wagner 
gives. Of the different forms of poetry it is especially the 
drama that exercises a vital influence upon men to-day. On 
the stage an interpretation of life in terms of beauty is at- 
tempted. The grandeur of human nature is portrayed, and 
its foibles are mirrored forth. The great passions that 
make or mar humanity, that elevate and refine, or ruin and 
degrade, are presented with the aim of likeness to life. Vast 
moral problems are set forth with unequaled vividness and 
power. The significance of character is brought out, and 
the worth of gentle manners. Trifling incidents of man's 
existence are pictured with a touch of humor that corrects 
the perspective, relieves the strain, and mellows the temper. 
Scarcely less important a place is held by the novel, which 
clothes with flesh and blood the skeleton of history, delin- 
eates character, depicts social conditions, sketches the pos- 
sible interplay of circumstance and human action. These 
modern creations of the imagination are nearer to reality 
than the mythical lore of antiquity ; the actors are men and 
not gods; the interest is fixed upon things regarded as 
secular from the ecclesiastical point of view. 

But profound as is the influence of science and philos- 
ophy, art and literature, on that part of the population in 
Protestant lands which is not attracted by the church, the 
power of social idealism in some form is even more marked. 
However imperfect the realization of democracy may have 
been, the principle of popular self-government has gained 
general recognition in most European countries as well as 
in America and Australia. The theory of the divine right 
of kings no longer commands serious attention. Whether 
the chief executive is called president or king or emperor, 



350 • THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

he is understood to be a servant of the state, such power as 
Jie has being delegated to him by the people. There still 
are many artificial limitations of the franchise, and the 
methods of expressing the people's will are everywhere im- 
perfect, but the whole trend of political development is in 
the direction of universal suffrage and a more direct influ- 
ence of every man and woman upon the management of 
common concerns. If at first the extension of rights of citi- 
zenship to the disfranchised seemed an end in itself, since it 
implied the enthronement of a new principle of political 
life, it gradually became apparent that its real significance 
consisted in being a means for effecting far reaching changes 
in social conditions. Many conditions once regarded as un- 
alterable, imposed by Providence, or i 
all social life, are now looked upon as wholly < ! 
upon the will of the people and subject to any char; 
deems wise to institute. Whether a nation shall be plunged 
into war is for the most part no longer 1«* ft in the 
of a sovereign ruler, and the time cannot be far off when 
no enlightened nation will undertake a war without an op- 
portunity bciiiLr given to every man and woman vitally con- 
cerned to register a vote for or against it If in a democ- 
racy sanitary and hygienic conditions in ted, slums 
are maintained, >f labor and inadequate 
compensation for work are allowed, children arc permitted 
to grow up without sufticien! 

capacities, a few are granted special priv which it 

is possible for them to amass enormous fortunes and th 
gain for themselves an illegitimate power over their fellow- 
men, while the many are handicapped and deprived of the 
full enjoyment of life, this is not bt must be. but 

because the many who have the power to effect rable 

changes do not yet perceive what ought alize 

what might be. 

But the perception of higher ideals has erown with mar- 
velous rapidity during the last century. Each school of 
earnest thinkers upon social subjects has contributed some- 
thing of value to the forming ideal of society. If one j 



THE PRESENT PROBLEM 351 

has brought out more clearly the advantages of partnership 
and cooperation, another has rightly emphasized the value 
of stewardship and individual initiative. Some have ren- 
dered a real service by showing the inexpediency of leaving 
in irresponsible private hands public utilities that society 
would more profitably control, or own and manage through 
responsible servants, while others have with equal wisdom 
indicated a sphere of private activities still jealously 
watched and subject to public interference, which would 
more wisely be left to private discretion. As the pendulum 
swings between socialism and individualism, the errors of 
one-sided and exaggerated views become apparent. The 
demand that every member of society shall be obliged to 
render some form of useful service, and in return shall re- 
ceive an equitable share in the common wealth, is not a whit 
less valid or important because of any incidental error in the 
theory of those who make it as to what constitutes legitimate 
labor or economic value, or an equitable share, or the most 
expedient method of securing a fair distribution. The views 
one day derided as empty dreams the next day are proved 
by sober tests to be based on good foundations. Economic 
methods regarded in one place as full of danger or impos- 
sible of application, in another place reveal their excellence 
and practicability. 

The attitude toward recognized social evils has undergone 
a significant change. Antiquity said : Slavery is a neces- 
sity ; but masters should treat their slaves in a humane 
manner ; slaves should obey their masters, and make them- 
selves inwardly free by a virtuous life. With us this an- 
tiquity reaches down to the last generation. The modern 
conscience says: it is wrong for a man to own his fellow- 
man; and slavery should therefore be abolished. And 
slavery has been abolished. In the past, war has been 
looked upon as an honorable pursuit or an unavoidable 
evil, and civilized nations have been content with demand- 
ing more humane methods, kindlier treatment of prisoners, 
and better care for the wounded. To-day the conviction 
is growing that it is a crime for one nation to wage war 



352 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

upon another nation, that such indiscriminate mass murder 
should be abolished, and that differences between states 
should be settled, as differences between individuals are, by 
the decisions of duly recognized courts. Disease, physical, 
mental or moral, once considered as the work of gods or 
demons, or deemed inevitable, is now seen to be preventable 
and curable. The idea that the mass of men must of neces- 
sity be ignorant, and fit only for work demanding little skill 
or intelligence, while education and extensive training can 
only be the special privilege of the few, is giving place to 
the view that every child should receive all the education 
necessary to develop a good and at citizen, and to 

unfold the special aptitudes by which the greatest service 
can be rendered to society. Until recent times it has been 
generally mp] ther that wealth is a sign of the favor 

of some god thus rewarding piety and virtue, while poi 
is a curse in tl ict ♦**! by a deity, as a punishment for sin, or that 
the accumulation of vast fortunes in the hands of a small 
number of men and the economic < ce or actual 

penury of the masses are * ssary results of some mys- 

us law with whose operation :gerous or wicked 

haw indeed been sitmiticant protests 

Igai] > wt 11 as the other of these sup- . but 

they ha\ morbid preference for 

rty, a narrow uman life, or an artificial 

scheme of equalization. At present the degrading influence 

r. at wealth and of great poverty alike is seen by 
thoughtful men; and the eonvietion is growing that the 
grade of intelligence, freedom, virtue and happiness would 
be higher in a soei.-ty where th "her rich nor 

poor. It is widely recognized that the great fortunes are 
not due to marked obedience to any laws, human or divine, 
hut in a considerable UM 00 of 

equitable laws, corruption of 1 i bodies, govern- 

mental favoritism, and flagrant d I of the most ele- 

mental principles of justice. That the organization of in- 
dustry and commerce has been of considerable value in 
lowering the cost of production, improving the conditions 



THE PRESENT PROBLEM 353 

of labor, and obviating waste, is not overlooked by those who 
demand that the capital shall be more directly controlled by 
the people. Nor is the principle of private property, which 
renders possible the gratification of varied tastes and safe- 
guards individual liberty, in any essential respect sacrificed 
when communities provide themselves, at the actual cost of 
obtaining them, with such necessities as water, gas, elec- 
tricity, sewers, tramways, garbage incinerators, paved 
streets, parks, docks, wharfs, bridges, baths, schools, 
museums, galleries, theaters, administrative buildings, resi- 
dences, stores, workshops, gardens, playgrounds and the 
like; or when nations take charge themselves of mails, 
expressage, railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamships, 
canals, forests, mines, universities, academies of art, scien- 
tific expeditions, and a multitude of other legitimate com- 
mon concerns. Conditions of life guaranteeing to each 
member of society an adequate education, opportunity of 
suitable work, stability of position, an equitable share in 
the produce of common toil, a high degree of individual lib- 
erty, a voice in the management of public affairs, and se- 
curity against want in old age, are no longer regarded by 
competent investigators of social phenomena as unapproach- 
able ideals but as ends to whose realization the political 
action of self-governing peoples should consciously and de- 
terminedly move. 

The attitude of the church to this mighty movement of 
thought, endeavor and aspiration, involving the greatest 
moral questions confronting the modern world, has too often 
been one of indifference or positive hostility. During the 
long years when the abolition of slavery was agitated in the 
United States the pulpit in general aided and abetted the 
trafficker in human flesh, while the champions of liberty 
whose names the nation honors to-day were for the most 
part outside the pale of the church. If a minister espoused 
the unpopular cause, he frequently lost caste among his col- 
leagues or jeopardized his position. The leading champions 
of woman's cause, her economic independence and political 

enfranchisement, have been without, the strongest defenders 
23 



354 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

of present inequalities within the church. Not without a 
certain degree of justice has the church, especially as it 
exists in the larger centers of population, been called "a 
capitalistic institution.' ' Though there are many honor- 
able exceptions, the leaders of the church as a rule have 
shown little sympathy with the aspirations of organized 
labor, little understanding of the aims of social reform, lit- 
tle courage to rebuke iniquity in high places, little capacity 
for grappling with large moral problems, little disposition 
to plead the cause of the weak. This applies to the Euro- 
pean churches as well as to the American. No pr 
against the martial spirit and the constant increase of arma- 
ments has oome from iical Church of Germany. 
The greatest peace-organization in the world is the Social 
Dem< biefa rec -ion. 

What can JesOfl do for these millions for whom the church 
as it le to do s<> little? What bread of life 

has li '/ What real needs of til tl It 

ridenl thai if he them anything; it must be 

truth and example, spirit and life. It is also clear that he 
cannot he their only teacher. In matters that most 
Beem t<> them of vital importance they will - 
II" a man would know the methods an 

tion in any field learn of those whose 

special gifts and charac; »rtunities and equip- 

ment, have made them tbi - of that par- 

ticular branch of - I ulent of physical sci 

he will sit at the men like Copernicus and Galileo, 

Newton and Laplace, Lyell and Agassis, Faraday and li 
holt/, Linnaeus and de Candolle. Schleiden and B 
Lamarck and Darwin. At the hand of accomplished phi- 
lologists, historians, arehaeol - the 
proper methods must be acquired by which it is possible to 
gain a knowledge of ancient civilizations, their languages 
and literatures, their social customs and forms of religious 
life. To determine the authorship and date of the Hebrew 
Scriptures and their true ehai thorough know] 
of philology, literature, history, mythology and natural 



THE PEESENT PROBLEM 355 

science is required. In so far as theology is a science deal- 
ing with the religious phenomena of man 's life, it must base 
its conclusions upon a comprehensive survey of the facts 
as they are exhibited in the various religions, and present a 
critical interpretation of the different religious beliefs and 
practices. No philosopher could without serious loss pass 
by the great thinkers of India, Greece and Germany, or be 
justified in the attempt to construct upon the reported say- 
ings of Jesus a complete theory of the universe, ignoring the 
subtlest and most penetrating thought upon the subject. 
The artist would miserably fail, were he to seek for his mas- 
ters in Palestine. Even the social reformer can ill afford to 
neglect the patient and keen-sighted investigators of eco- 
nomic conditions and political relations, while endeavoring 
to derive from the Sermon on the Mount a complete descrip- 
tion of what society should be. There are important 
features of the modern ideal not touched upon in the extant 
utterances of Jesus. He does not seem to have said any- 
thing concerning the necessity of education, the duty of 
work, the principles of distribution, the rights of woman, 
the use of the franchise, the ministry of art. It is not pos- 
sible to infer from the Golden Rule how he conceived of 
its application to the complex relations of modern society, 
any more than this can be done in the case of the similar 
rule of Hillel. 

Yet there are real and urgent needs of this intellectually 
maturer section of society that are of such a character that 
men may well inquire whether Jesus is not better qualified 
than any other leader of mankind to meet them. Science 
and philosophy, art and politics are far from being what 
they should be, and those who seek to give to life through 
them a greater worth and satisfaction often fail. While 
science has many devotees consumed with a passion for the 
truth and finding in this love an ample reward, there are 
also many to whom it is only a means of securing a liveli- 
hood, gratifying social ambition, or gaining notoriety, many 
coarse natures filling the circumambient air with their dis- 
cordant cries, their arrogant assertions, their ill-bred clamor 



356 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

for recognition, their wearisome priority claims, their angry 
denunciation of opponents, many unclean spirits slovenly 
in all their methods, dishonest in the use of other men 's work, 
ignorant of the simplest commandments in the scholar's 
decalogue, and a host of parasites swearing in verba magis- 
///. repeating the slogans of their clan, puffed up with 
knowledge not their own and incapable of an independent 
judgment or a fai ppreciation. If the great 

problems of philosophy are examined by master-minds bas- 
ing their conclusions on wide and accurate knowledge, and 
srving before the m humble, 

doeile and reverent attitude, they also attract multitudes 
who are ready to gloat over the downfall of anciei^ 
without any perception of the elements of truth contained 
in them, I the articles of some new creed without a 

personal investigation of their validity, to strip the world 
of its mythical veil without ability to look with ch 
upon its ondraped beauty, I( l olil rides and sanctions 

of morality without the foundations of a new 

ethics, or guard itly the sense ol ition. 

Much thai goes under the nan <hed counter- 

feit injurious all] winners and morality 

trial r epre s en tations of woma 
no legitimate inn trying the healthy 

desire tor beauty, but i 

The 
theater is institution of 

high art. Neglecting the immortal works of genius 
the better cl dramas, it frequently 

stoops to the presentation of works marked only by their 
inanity, covr lousness and Vulgarity. T 

would be more easily cured if the responsibility lay 
with the managers whose financial fa lead them to 

eater to depraved tastes: but the public is equally at fault. 
The influence is mutual. Without popular support there 
would be no inducement to present anything but the ; 
without ingenious devices for whetting the appetite such 
abnormal tastes would not develo; 1-reading has as- 



THE PRESENT PROBLEM 357 

sumed such proportions as to constitute a danger. A mor- 
bid craving for fiction may be developed even by the reading 
of good novels, and create a dislike for more substantial 
branches of literature, for scientific investigations, or for 
the ordinary work and experiences of life. But there is an 
abundance of bad novels, written in a wretched style, de- 
picting crime in a fascinating manner, giving an exagger- 
ated importance to the erotic element, tending to obliterate 
all moral distinctions. 

In the struggle between antiquated institutions and a 
better social order the defenders are not always in the 
wrong, and the assailants are seldom wholly right. Even 
the best cause does not make so perfect a cleavage that all 
the sheep are upon one side and all the goats upon the 
other. The friends of reform have to reckon not only with 
the force of habit, the power of prejudice, and the vested 
interests arrayed against them, but also with their own 
errors of judgment, lack of experience and moral failings. 
How formidable are the obstacles that must be overcome, if 
war is to be abolished! Millions of men gain their liveli- 
hood by war. Millions of money are invested in machines 
designed for the destruction of life and property. Millions 
of children are brought up to look upon war as the highest 
expression of patriotism. National vanity, national greed 
and national prejudice urge the increase of armies and 
navies. Rulers and ruling classes rely for their power upon 
a soldiery sworn to blind and unquestioning obedience. On 
the other hand, the opponents of war often fail to appreciate 
the relative value of even an indignant and forcible pro- 
test against wrong, or to recognize the inadequacy of extant 
provisions for settling disputes between nations by civilized 
methods, or to estimate fairly the moral significance of any 
enthusiasm for the welfare of a people, any unselfish devo* 
tion to larger interests, however mistaken the expression 
may be. Still more deplorable is the fact that at critical 
times friends of peace so frequently are disorganized and 
inactive, allow themselves to be influenced to some extent 
by the passions that rage about them, lose confidence in the 



358 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

more excellent way, and fearing the stigma of cowardice 
or treason become by guilty silence traitors to their deepest 
convictions and to their country's highest interests. The 
attempts to extend the suffrage to men of small means, men 
of different color, or women, run counter to the powerful 
instincts, strengthened' by social conventions and relL 
that lead the rich to lord it over the poor, the white race 
over the dark ones, the men over the women. But the way 
of reform Lb also blocked by the ignorance, incompetence, 
indifference to higher interests, ill-balanc lent and 

ill-governed temper of the disfranchised. In union * 
is strength. Through organii been possible 

to raise the standard of living for mil: corkers, fix a 

maximum day and a minimum wage, mak< ployment 

of little children in i illegal, improve the sanitary 

conditions of lal position of the indi- 

vidual 1< in-. I; tul of these advantages 

gained tor him 1 . I man thinks that he 

can single-handed deal with a powerful syndicate, and 

secure from it o not in its inten 

grant, he ken. But not less wra 

clearly the organization whid force 

such a man to unite with his fello* - east 

upon a worth. and irret 

the i' are oot i ! . and kept under the control 

of reason and a due regard for the ri( 
not sufficient in a that there shall be a readiness 

on the part of the minority t I the 

majority ; there must I nees on the part of the 

majority to C the rights and reasonable d 

the minority. Afl B the u rf ie class seem 

antagonistic to, or in reality conflict with, the int 
another C ial strit y kindled and intensified 

by success as much as by defeat When the dumb and sul- 
len resignation of a man to his lot. whatever it may be, gives 
place to hope and active effort for the improvement of his 
condition, a centering of all interest on material thin 
apt to ensue which often does serious harm to the finer in- 



THE PEESENT PEOBLEM 359 

stincts of manhood. It is not to be denied that the social 
atmosphere at times seems saturated with avarice and lust 
and spite, and that the moral progress of the race is re- 
tarded by the lack of sterling honesty, unselfish devotion 
and considerate judgment noticeable in all social relations. 
Masses of men seem to be absorbed in the pursuit of things 
which perish with the using. The higher interests of 
human life seem to have no attraction for them. The igno- 
rance and suffering and sin of their fellow-men do not fill 
their hearts with compassion and a desire to help. They ap- 
parently never ask themselves to what nobler use they might 
put the intelligence and power they possess as men. They 
appear to drift aimlessly toward ignoble destinies rather 
than resolutely shaping their lives into harmony with some 
exalted pattern. In their eagerness to satisfy every appe- 
tite and every passing whim, they lose their lives and fail 
of true self-realization. With mockery they treat every 
dream of social justice. No vision of a better order of 
society finds a hospitable reception in their minds. They 
seek not first the kingdom of heaven and its righteous- 
ness, and therefore know not how to use well any other 
thing. They seem to have no sense of the deep and sacred 
meaning of life. Neither the nature by which man is sur- 
rounded, with its intimations of a rational order and in- 
flexible laws, nor human history, with its suggestions of an 
upward trend and of powers that work for righteousness, 
is permitted to lead them to a reverent contemplation of the 
infinite source of their existence and a willing submission 
to cosmic moral laws, that they might have life, and have it 
more abundantly. It is this need of moral strength to realize 
a. high ideal that constitutes the deepest problem of the age. 



CHAPTER XIV 



THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 



Spiritual needs can only be met by spiritual means. If 
men and women are to be filled with such a passion for 
truth, such a hunger aft ■, such a lov 

beauty, as shall lift and purify their souls, make their 
experiences deep and rich, render their char rong 

and resplendent, and flood them with joy unspeakable 
and lull of glory, flame must be kindled by flame, spirit 
breathe apon spirit, life touch life. There is no force in 
things to raise the sunken spirit. The power of gra 
tion canimt straighten out a crook -sition. The 

! lill the inner void. CI 
ing tli"' outside of the cup does not make that which is 

within pure. Tl 00 halm in Qilead that will 

the wounded heart. It is the touch of man tl: 
It is in human minds t 1 horn which 

blaze lik rring. In human 

hearts spring up those mighty impulses, th rful 

emotions, that quicken zeal and strengthen moral purpose. 

In the depths of great souls brOOds the destiny of the ' 
In them are fountains of eternal life. Out of the b 
of humanity deli forth, • .t he 

has to give. While othei md will do much 

for our modern world, the healing, puri; 
flnen >f priceless value. When 1 

Log, conduct, Bpiritoal attitude and character are rightly 
understood, they become a source of strength and inspira- 
tion. Xo man can come in contact with him without feel- 
ing that life e:oes out from him. His touch is quieke: 
He is able to help the scientist in his fa *ion. the 

philosopher in his search for ultimate reality, the artist 

860 



THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 361 

in his creative work, the social reformer in his endeavor 
to cast in nobler moulds the common life. He may have 
known very little of astronomy or geology, history or lit- 
erature, scientific methods or scientific results, but he pos- 
sessed in a very marked degree such essential qualifica- 
tions for success in any scientific work as a disposition to 
examine the facts for himself, independence of authority, 
confidence in his own judgment, capacity for inductive 
reasoning, love of truth, gentleness and firmness in pre- 
senting it, and willingness to make sacrifices for its sake. 
No student can listen closely to his words without being 
impressed with their ring of sincerity, their mission to 
make known what he actually thought, their testimony 
to careful observation and protracted reflection. His 
mental freedom, his loyalty to conviction, his kindliness of 
judgment are contagious. In his presence the scholar is 
ashamed of petty squabbles and pedantic ways, pride of 
knowledge and thirst for fame, denial of merit and nar- 
rowness of sympathy, swallowing camels and straining 
out gnats, and becomes reverent, truthful and considerate. 
Jesus was a thinker, and can therefore help those who 
think deeply and earnestly upon the great problems of 
existence. He may never have dreamed of the numer- 
ous problems concerning the constitution of the universe 
and the faculties of the human mind that had for centuries 
occupied the philosophers of India and Greece, and he 
may have shared the current beliefs of his time in good 
and evil spirits. But when his eyes sought the invisible 
reality behind the phenomena of nature and he whispered 
"Abba," " Father," he recognized the inherent Tightness, 
rationality and goodness of the ultimate reality. And 
yet this was no superficial view conveniently overlooking 
the facts that create difficulties. The gifted poet to whom 
we owe the Dialogues in the Book of Job saw far less 
clearly than Jesus the fallacy of the common belief that 
the world is so arranged as to secure prosperity to the 
good and to make adversity a sign of wickedness, or that 
to be right the world must be so ordered. The men on 



THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 



X 



whom the tower of Siloam fell were not sinners above 
those who escaped. The Father lets his sun shine on the 
good and the bad, and he allows his rain to fall on the 
just and the unjust. That, according to Jesus, is right, 
lie perceived a law of compensation working with unfail- 
ing accuracy. When a man prays in public, that he may 
be seen of men, and men may see him, h - rew ar d. 

In ili<' midst of hi ty the righteous man is rich, and 

when he < -n t « *« 1 tor right 

the joy that swells the prophet's heart He who 
life for the sake of the kingdom ity finds 

it. Jesus looked into the depths 

and saw that, t" ; .t. man's words and >\> 

flow from a correcl disposition! and I this 

disposition must l..- characterized by t 1 and 

obedience, tl om and confident and 

affection of . by the jn inity, the 

sympathy and kindness, tin* considera tene ss ami fori 

of a brother, 
realit] - the thought 

the many in all lands whose m ■ the 

great questions of philosophy 1 

denee in the essentia] rightness • 

his healthy aeon in the necessary conditio! 

man's lit'.-, liis ehasl 

fraternal attitude, his ealm indif 

Ulg, his < h'.>j> cm 

fountains of life, their vision would their 

grasp upon the important element 

and their reasoning the danger of being 
vitiated by undue moral infra 

In one province of art man 

The beaut} was as 

marked as its originality. Even the handful of I 

ments that has come down i an bn p g c— i oi 

his extraordinary power. Though Oriental oral 

abounds in figurative Ian tnd illustrat 

and volumes of \ prized "as appl Id in 



THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 363 

baskets of silver" have been preserved from Hebrew an- 
tiquity, there is nothing that even approaches the parable 
of Jesus. It has the excellence that forbids imitation. 
There are works of art so perfect in their kind that the 
world instinctively leaves the sacred ground preempted 
by genius for other fields of endeavor. The beauty of 
nature impressed itself upon the sensitive mind of Jesus, 
and was reflected in the simplicity and grandeur, the har- 
mony and radiancy, of his speech. Each work of art in 
the Galilean master's gallery stands forth in maiden 
purity, chaste, modest and unconscious of its loveliness, 
yet breathes the breath of life. These characters of his 
creation will live as long as the human race. Churches 
may rise and fall, theological systems may come and go, 
works of great merit may be dropped into the limbo of 
forgotten things, but the love of inspiring art will itself 
secure against oblivion the Good Samaritan, Dives and 
Lazarus, the Foolish Virgins, the Prodigal Son, the Sow- 
ers, the Widow, the Shepherd, and their companions. 
Jesus may have known next to nothing of sculpture and 
painting, of music and drama, and may have had no idea 
of their place in the moral and spiritual development of 
man; but he knew as few know the art of touching all the 
chords that vibrate within the soul, the emotions, the 
will and the mind, and to lift and refine whenever 
he touched them. It is better that men should eat 
than that they should starve; but without art the richest 
community is a poor-house. Yet art passes quickly from 
splendor and ripeness to a state of putrescence. If its 
educative and ennobling influence is to be maintained it 
must be held to high ideals. The tendencies that drag it 
down can only be counteracted by a general improve- 
ment of the moral tone. This the spirit of Jesus never 
fails to accomplish. 

The gradual evolution of society is never the carrying 
out in detail of some seer's dream or some reformer's 
scheme. The noblest Utopias embody features that in the 
light of maturer thought and riper experience appear un- 



364 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH 

desirable or positively harmful. The best laid plans of 
reform contain some dangerous and unwise elements. 
They should be judged by their general trend, their most 
distinctive features, and their spirit. However slow the 
progress may seem, the leadership in the thoughts and af- 
fairs of men goes ultimately to those whose ideas are 
greatest and have most intrinsic worth, and whose pur- 
poses are most benevolent and have the widest reach. 
The Sermon on the Mount may be far from giving a com- 
plete programme of social reform or a complete theory 
of social relationship. But in these and other utterances 
of Jesus he expi of such far-reaching impor- 

tance, lays down prineip] urtling and revolutionary, 

that, if they should in the main commend themselves to 
men and find embodiment in their social lif«\ a transforma- 
tion of human society would be the result, and his leader- 
ship would become a more momentous fact than it has 
ever been It was his conviction, to which he was faithful 
even to the end, that men should love their 
good to those who use them ill, abstain from all retalia- 
tion. an«l overcome evil with good. The adoption of this 
principle would abolish war. do away with armies and 
navies that are a constant menace to tin- world, send mil- 
lions of men back to productive and profitable work, and 
give millions of capital to useful industry and needed im- 
provements, to education, art and a I no 
Christian denomination except the little body of Quakers 
accepts the view of Jesus in its literal and unqualified 
statement, but outside of the Church there if wing 
disposition to regard his attitude as both wise and pi 
tical. It is true that the millions in Europe and America 
who do not count themsc ians. but who stren- 
uously oppose war, are more or less inclined to differ with 
Jesus as to the possibility or desirability of lovh 
enemies. Nevertheless they are in perfect agreement with 
him on the crucial point, that one nation should not : 
another nation as an enemy, and go forth to kill 
pie on account of some slight or injury done to it. or 



THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 365 

cause of a difference in religious views or social customs. 
And great would be the gain in refinement of sentiment, 
gentleness of temper and nobility of character, could they 
be persuaded to adopt more of the principle of Jesus. 
This principle goes far beyond the establishment of inter- 
national arbitration. But this is a step in the right di- 
rection. The day when the battleflags of nations shall 
be furled in the parliament of man, will be a day of tri- 
umph to the Galilean prophet. Nor can the approach of 
this day be doubted. Cannibalism, once rampant, scarcely 
exists in the world to-day. Slavery, once universal, is to- 
day banished from the civilized world. War belongs to 
the same category of institutions, and will fare as they. 

Jesus applied this principle in other directions. He 
criticised severely the law of retaliation which was re- 
garded as essential to the welfare of society and lay at 
the basis of all administration of justice. "An eye for an 
eye and a tooth for a tooth" was a legal enactment, a 
provision of the Jewish penal code. Jesus rejected it as 
out of harmony with his conception of righteousness. If 
a man's eye had been gouged out by his enemy, Jesus 
would not have him secure through judicial proceedings a 
similar operation upon the eye of this enemy. According 
to his judgment, a higher righteousness would be shown 
by returning good for evil, by seeking to eradicate the 
angry passion, to awaken a sense of shame and to arouse 
a desire for reconciliation through kindly treatment. The 
carrying out of his idea would lead to an abandonment of 
the current systems of punitive justice, and the introduc- 
tion of methods designed to prevent the development of 
criminal tendencies and to effect a change in the criminal 
by example and environment. It would render obsolete 
both capital punishment and enforced idleness in jails. It 
would tend to remove that spirit of violence which ex- 
presses itself in murders and lynchings. Concerning the 
means to be employed in order to cure mental and moral 
disease, and to protect society against its ravages there 
may be room for differences of opinion; and it may be 



366 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

doubted whether Jesus had given much thought to the 
various applications of his principle. But his general con- 
ception of how men should deal with evil-doers is gaining 
recognition in modern society. 

Closely allied with the treatment of moral perverts is 
the passing of judgment upon men. The advice of Jesus 
was ''Judge not!" With his deep intuition he perceived 
how impossible it is for any man to gain such a know] 
of the subtle workings of another mind, such a freedom 
from prejudice, and such a disinterested, impartial and 
sympathetic disposition as to justify his assuming the part 
of a judge, while his deeply religions nature shrank from 
niiiLT to fallible man a function belonging only to 
God. Tl ration appr as men have 

never done before the tremendous power of heredity and 
environment, the complexity of human natn: iulti- 

tudinous motives Leading up I ility 

of ascertaining all these infln nd the ineompd 

of judgment! on assumptions of kr. not 

I and of freedom not 1. Minds influenced 

by mode- and more inclined to abstain 

from judging. Even judicial proceedings assume increas- 
ingly the eharaei dentine investigations leadii 
com! tentative and so i the 

most expedient COUTI 1 in or<: cure 

for all memb .-ire of profit 

and happiness during their life on the earth. If the 
thought of Jesus should beeome widely prevalent, the 
tendency would be to eliminate all condemnation, and to 
narrow the sphere of judicial inquiry. 1 Is to the 

woman taken in adultery, "Neither do I condemn thee," 
indicate his customary unwillingness to dratr before the 
gaze of men and submit to their judgment what essentially 
belongs to the privacy of life. In this society may wi^ 
follow his example. 

Jesus laid down the principle that when men live to- 
gether as they should there is none among them who lords 
it over the rest or who exercises authority over them, but 



THE LEADEKSHIP OF JESUS 367 

they vie with one another in rendering service. It would 
be impossible to reject more emphatically the divine right 
of kings, or to express more beautifully the ideal of de- 
mocracy. It is not only the reign of anointed monarchs 
that Jesus looks upon as wrong, but all lordship. His 
ideal is not a dead level of mediocrity. He recognizes the 
legitimacy of the desire for greatness. But greatness 
should not consist in power to rule over men. It should 
consist in increased power to serve. With the growing 
demand for popular self-government and the constant ex- 
tension of the suffrage, it is only a matter of time when 
the kings and emperors of Europe and Asia shall have lost 
such autocratic powers as still remain to them, and shall 
have been obliged to surrender their dynastic claims. Far 
more serious is the question how long the oligarchies of 
wealth that form the real power behind all governments 
and exercise a lordship kings might envy, shall be able 
to maintain themselves. But vastly more important than 
the elimination of irresponsible authority in any form is 
the temper of the developing democracies. Ill fares so- 
ciety when ruled by mobs. The power wielded by masses 
of men egged on to deeds of violence and injustice by 
hatred, selfishness and thirst for vengeance is never so 
terrible as when it is used in the name of the whole people. 
Then the reaction inevitably comes. The horrors of the 
Napoleonic wars follow the horrors of the French revolu- 
tion. A people can successfully manage its own affairs 
only in proportion as its citizens are enlightened and un- 
selfish, capable of service and eager to render it, regard- 
ful of the rights of others and anxious to help the largest 
number, content with giving directions as to the general 
policy, and willing to leave the details to specially trained 
and responsible servants, courageous in their protests 
against wrong, and peaceful in their methods of righting 
it. When in a quiet and dignified manner Jesus criticised 
a tax imposed on him that was prescribed in the Law, and 
yet paid it under protest so as not to cause offense, he set 
an admirable example of the most successful social agita- 



368 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

tion. It would be wise in those who have earnestly at 
heart the cause of popular self-government to follow the 
leadership of Jesus, whose aim is sufficiently high for the 
most thoroughgoing reformer, and whose method is justi- 
fied by the lessons of history. 

To maintain the authority of kings and governments, 
the obedience of soldiers, the orthodoxy of theologians, 
the veracity of witnesses, the fidelity of husbands and the 
subordination of wives, the oath has been deemed a neces- 
sity. Jesus said, "Swear not at all!" The nominally 
Christian state has never recognized the wisdom of his 
counsel, and the Church for its convenience has furnished 
a wholly improbable int e r p re ta tion, by which Jesus did 
not have in mind any oath that really meant anything, but 
only the sen with which the ordinary 

conversation of some men is too redolent. The early 
Christians, the Baptist! of t) nth century, and the 

Quakers understood him, and manifested by their lives 
the profitabl since no legitimate 

interest of societ 1 by it. and the regard for truth 

and the fidelity to duty on which all social order I 
were strongly enhanced by it. Thoughtful men at the 
lent time look upon the oath as an anachronism in a 
ty that doea not demand or enforce belief in a god. 
Believers in republican institutions regard oaths of al- 
Legianee to monareha and dy rejudieial to the 

best interests of a people. When a soldier is req 
swear that he will obey his - thout a question, 

even though he order him to shoot his father and mother, 
or to follow blindly his general, even though he lead him 
to deeds of brutality and treachery, this is so palpably an 
insult to his manhood that civilized men would not toler- 
ate it for a moment, were it not for the mistaken notion 
that differences between nations can only be settled by 
war, and that a strong army pledged to unquestioning 
obedience is a protection to the state. The more liberal 
sections of the Church are thoroughly ashamed of the 
oaths by which ministers and teachers bind thems 



THE LEADEKSHIP OF JESUS 369 

to depart from certain doctrinal statements, not to ad- 
vance in the knowledge of the truth, and people outside 
the Church look with pity upon men who are not free to 
investigate and to proclaim their convictions, with cen- 
sure often upon those who in spite of their oath claim lib- 
erty of conscience, and invariably with more or less dis- 
trust upon leaders who are not expected to lead. Truth- 
ful men will not lie in a court or anywhere else, and in 
this age of the world few wicked men are deterred by the 
fear of hell from bearing false testimony in a court or 
anywhere else. If the relations of man and woman are 
based on true love, no oath can give an added guarantee 
of faithfulness ; if love is not the basis, no oath can make 
the union moral. There is no reason why a woman should 
pledge herself to obey a man. While strong prejudices 
still prevail against the view of Jesus, and powerful 
interests are arrayed against it, the tendency of modern 
thought is distinctly in favor of his position. If men 
would follow where he leads, they would come to a society 
where oaths are never heard. 

Some of the most delicate and important social ques- 
tions of the present day deal with the economic, political 
and domestic position of woman. It is not probable that 
Jesus was led to consider the possibility of woman's eco- 
nomic independence, or the desirability of her political 
emancipation. But he had occasion to meditate pro- 
foundly upon the treatment accorded to woman in his 
age and by his people, and he expressed in word and deed 
convictions on this subject that are as important to-day 
as they were then. When he criticised Moses for hav- 
ing given in the Law a concession to the men, on account 
of the hardness of their hearts, contrary to the will of God 
as expressed in the beginning in the creative act, he em- 
phasized the equal right of man and woman in the mar- 
riage relation. In view of this unmistakable import of 
his saying, the errors that lie on the surface fade into in- 
significance. It is readily seen to-day that Moses had 
nothing to do with the Deuteronomic legislation, that the 
24 



370 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH 

dismissal of wives was no innovation at the time when 
this code was written, that there never was a first man, 
that man in primitive conditions did not practise mon- 
ogamy, that the law was very far in advance of the rules 
regulating sexual intercourse in earlier forms of social 
life, 1 that this law was intended to secure to woman, and 
in reality did afford her, protection, inasmuch as by the 
letter of dismissal the husband renounced all his rights 
over her, and could not legally interfere with her mar- 
riage to another man, and that the absolute indissolubility 
of marriage would result in greater misery to woman than 
that produced by the lav inmoral rela- 

tions, annulling the mating rights, and making her sla- 
very complete. The important fact is that his sympathy 
with woman led him to condemn the Mosaic legislation in 
this matter, and to contrast its discrimination in favor of 
the man with the equality implied in the narrative of 
man's creation. At botl - an appeal from human 

station to the divinely ordained nature of man and 
woman. Sueh is the relation :i man and woman as 

a result of their creation, and consequent natural pecul- 
iarity of forming a unity by supplementing each other, 
that it cannot be right to allow a man to send away his 
wife in order t<> take another, and thus to lei man 

at the mercy of her husband - 

by taking this position declared his conviction that man 
should not b ded rights withheld from woman in 

the married relation, he made himself one of the great 
champions of woman's cause. 

That his attitude on this question was born of sympathy 

'On the other hand, it is decidedly inferior to the Lav of Earn- 
murabi, which recognizes the right of a woman to divorce a husband 
she cannot love and marry "the man of her heart, " Code of Ham- 
murabi, od. K. F. Harper, Chicago, Ltt This code 
Confirm! the impression already gained that both socially and econom- 
ically woman's position was higher in Babylonia than in Syria. Cf. 
the interesting observations on woman as a eultic official in Babylonia 
bv 1. IVritz in Journal of Biblical Literature. 1S9S. p. 119 f., and 
note the civic rights of hierodules recognized by the Code, 



THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 371 

with the weaker part, is manifest from his protest against 
social ostracism of woman. He not only administered 
stinging rebukes to the pious and respectable scribes and 
Pharisees who cast off their wives that they might marry 
more desirable women, and then hypocritically drew 
about them their skirts not to come in polluting con- 
tact with those whom they had themselves driven into a 
life of shame, but he fairly invited adverse criticism upon 
his conduct by eating and drinking with women of ill 
repute. Neither did he think that aught would be gained 
by socially ostracizing the scribe and the Pharisee. It 
seems to have been the prevailing view in the church that 
his attitude and example in this respect should not be 
recommended. The policy of Christian society has dif- 
fered little from that of Jewish society attacked by Jesus. 
In order that the home might be protected, thousands of 
tender-hearted women who have loved not wisely but too 
well, thousands of ignorant and confiding victims of man's 
lust, thousands of weak and sorely tempted children un- 
able by the pittance that their hands could earn to keep 
the wolf from the door, have been thrust out of society 
to form a class by themselves, living in idleness, shut off 
from helpful influences and noble associations, forced to 
simulate affection or to center all attention on the sexual 
function, outraged by police inspection, scorned by those 
they cared for, preyed upon by persons coining money out 
of their misfortune, themselves becoming misers by the 
unnatural trade, or reckless spendthrifts during the brief 
hey-day of their beauty. But this segregation has in no 
way tended to protect the home. It has only separated 
one group of women from another to the physical and 
moral injury of both. The men have not been subject to 
such a division. Whether they have thoughtlessly yielded 
to an impulse of youthful ardor, or sought an illicit com- 
pensation for their social or economic inability to con- 
tract marriage, or wickedly designed and brought about 
the ruin of young lives for the satisfaction of their morbid 
cravings, they have often seemed to go scot-free, and re- 



372 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

tained their position in society. It is natural that a sense 
of the injustice of such discrimination should lead to a 
demand for a similar social ostracism to be applied to the 
men. But it is perfectly clear that this plan cannot be 
carried out, and that our present evils would not be reme- 
died, if it could. The maturest study of the situation 
indicates the wisdom of the attitude of Jesus. Let hu- 
man intercourse be natural, kind, sympathetic, free from 
hypocrisy, self-righteousness and condescension, dignified 
and self-controlled, yet marked by thoughtfulness and 
chivalry. 

This disposition on the part of Jesus is all the more 
significant as in his own life he seems to have suppressed 
the sexual instincts. He was a celibate and apparently 
commended to others celibacy for the sake of the k 
dom of heaven. As an answer to the question whetb 
is well to marry at all in view of the demanded indis- 
solubility of marriage, Matth. xix, 10-12, can only be 
understood as affirming that celibacy is to be preferred, 
especially by those who care for the kingdom of heaven. 1 
And celibacy with Jesus meant absolute continence. This 
is evident from Matth. v, 27-o0, where the man who looks 
upon a woman to lust after her is characterised u 
adulterer and the sacrifice of a member for tie- salvation 
of the whole body is recommended Luke 

xx, 27 ff. and parallels those who are accounted worthy to 
rise from the dead and have a share in the world to come 
neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like 
angels in heaven. Our fragmentary record of his sayings 
does not tell us whether Jesus tod that men 

might marry, and women bear children, and parents bring 
up their little ones for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. 
Would that it did ! But a warning ; ntering upon 

marital relations without a careful consideration of per- 
sonal fitness for propagating human life is as timely now 
as in the first century ; an admonition not to cherish sexual 
desires tending to express themselves in faithless deeds is 

1 The text referred to is, however, of doubtful genuineness. 



THE LEADEKSHIP OF JESUS 373 

as necessary; and a protest against giving to the sexnal 
relations an exaggerated importance is as wholesome as 
then. 

But Jesus not only objected to the law of divorce be- 
cause of its discrimination in favor of the men, and its 
permission to sunder relations originally intended to be 
indissoluble ; he also indicated his disapproval of the pun- 
ishment of a woman taken in adultery. The law pre- 
scribed that such a woman should be put to death (Lev. 
xx, 10; Deut. xxii, 22 ff.). If Jesus had believed that the 
law on this point expressed the will of God, and that the 
welfare of the community depended upon the punishment 
of such crimes, he would naturally have referred to the 
passages in the law that determined the procedure in this 
case. Instead of that, he skillfully shifted the whole ques- 
tion from the ground of legal procedure to that of justice 
and fairness. "Let him who is without sin among you 
first cast a stone at her! ,, The moral effect of these 
words, revealing like a flash of lightning how little right 
these men had to bring about this woman's death, was 
such as to prevent any action on their part. But if this 
principle were admitted, and the administrators of jus- 
tice were to consider not only whether a crime has been 
committed, and what the legally prescribed penalty is, 
but also whether their own lives and hearts were so free 
from sin that they would feel competent to condemn a 
fellow-man, the most far-reaching consequences would fol- 
low. In the case of a woman taken in adultery the prog- 
ress of civilization has to a certain extent justified the 
position of Jesus. In most civilized countries she is 
neither burned at the stake nor stoned to death. She is 
still set in the pillory, made a target for a thousand ar- 
rows, publicly exposed to insolent questioning and ribald 
jest, obliged to furnish an interesting chapter to the 
chronique scandaleuse, forced to tear out her heart and 
reveal the intimacies of her life, driven under the lash of 
judicial inquiry to gratify the hunger for piquant details 
of countless newspaper readers. Nor are the cruelty and 



374 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

indecency of these divorce proceedings to any marked 
extent abated by the fact that the erring husband may be 
subjected to the same treatment. Here again the matur- 
est reflection of the age moves in the direction of the 
thought of Jesus. The scene which closes with the shame- 
faced departure of the would-be judges, the solemn word, 
"Neither do I condemn thee," and the return of the 
woman to her fire-side with the impression of a new and 
nobler type of humanity, pi I the course of social 

development that the human race is likely to follow. The 
chaste and Loving heart of Jesus prol gainst the in- 

dignitiee heaped upon woman by man. his wantonness in 
using her, his cruelty in abandoning her. his hypoer: 
condemning her. In the • irit we I OB to de- 

mand f<>r woman equal!; Advantage! of education, 

equally good opportunities of economic independence, 
equal rights of cituenshi] lorn to work out her own 

life, to seek or to be sought, I withhold, respect 

for her private relations, for the intimacies of maiden- 
hood, wifehood and motl. 
Profoundly significant are also the at Jesus ex- 

1 to wealth. The* 1 numer- 

ous question! upon thifl I that in all probability 

never presented then n any form to his mind, and 

whose i'.ir-r. lid not have 

been prepared to gn a man far more familiar 

than he can have been with the economic condition of the 
Roman empire and the other kingdoms of the world would 
have been quite Unable to understand the commercial and 
industrial situation of the present time. The questions 
that confront us affecting the relations of capital and 
labor, the control of either through the suffr; free- 

dom or constraint o^ trade, the principles and metho 
taxation, the rate of lard, denomination, 

and issuance of money, cannot be - without a careful 

observation of the facts of modern life and deep reflection 
upon the significance of these facts, upon economic laws 
and social tendencies. Each age mi; pie wit! 



THE LEADEBSBXP OF JESUS 375 

own problems. But behind these there loom up vaster 
ones that belong to all ages. Jesus watched the effect of 
wealth upon the character of men. He also observed the 
influence upon character of the practice of sharing with 
others. And he perceived both the danger and the need- 
lessness of worry. 

As a reason why a man should not lay up treasures for 
himself on the earth he pointed to the danger of this occu- 
pation. The mind and the affections would naturally 
center upon the object of constant pursuit. Longing for 
possessions, respect for wealth, worship of Mammon would 
insensibly take the place of love of God and fellow-man. 
A desire for more than is needed and more than is fair 
would unconsciously lead to a disregard for the needs and 
rights of others, and consequently become a source of all 
evil. It was this conception of the detriment to character 
inevitably resulting from the pursuit of wealth, and not 
a notion that he was himself exceptionally prone to the 
vice of avarice, that caused him deliberately to choose the 
poor man's lot, though he might have made money as a 
rabbi or exorcist. It was this sense of danger in the pos- 
session of wealth, and not any extraordinary cupidity 
manifest in the attitude of the young man who so strongly 
attracted him, that led him to give his famous advice. In 
thus emphasizing the deteriorating effect of wealth upon 
character, Jesus presented a conviction, the truth of which 
is borne out by the observations of thoughtful men, and 
should have a wider recognition in the world than it has. 
Even if, with the advance of human civilization, social 
conditions should undergo such a change as to eliminate 
completely the type of poverty now existing as well as the 
abnormal fortunes that at present constitute so great a 
menace to society, the spirit which seeks for things with- 
out knowing how to use them, heaps up treasures for its 
own satisfaction only, desires more than it needs, delights 
in individual comfort more than in the common weal, and 
loves the things that perish with the using better than the 
spiritual possessions of man, would still be a danger. As 



376 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

conditions are to-day, it is perfectly evident that just in 
proportion as the laying up of treasures for himself be- 
comes the absorbing interest in a man's life, justice and 
mercy, regard for the rights, liberties and welfare of 
others, search after truth, love of goodness, simplicity, 
uprightness and moral heroism, tend to disappear. There 
may be no St. Peter at the gate of heaven revising the care- 
fully considered judgment of the church in such matters, 
but it remains a truth that, in the very nature of things, 
a man whose heart is set on riches cannot enter the king- 
dom of righteousness, love and truth. It should therefore 
be the endeavor of all good men so to modify by wise 
measures the methoda in vogue at present as to render it 
increasingly difficult for a man to secure an inordinate 
share of the common wealth to the ruin of his charaet 

This attitude toward wealth does not seem to have 
sprung from a morbid love of poverty for its own sake. On 
the contrary as an 

evil. In the ooming kingdom there were to be no paupers. 
His gospel vraa good tid "he poor. His sympathy 

went out to the needy Ones, I If shared with them his 
homely fare, his bread and tish. Considering how difficult 
it was for a poor man much needed loan of 

money, and to pay the interest on it, he counseled those who 
had money to lend gladly, and to look for no interest. Con- 
sidering how difiicult it was for many a man in destitute 
circumstance mme any financial obligation, he ad- 

vised his disciples to share sueh things as they had with 
the needy. A Baying that eseaped the attention of the 
evangelists declares that "it is more bh- than 

to receive." 1 In order, however, to enjoy the full bene- 
fit of this blessiinr. a man should avoid not only public 
attention but also self-consciousness and pride. He must 
not let his left hand know what his right hand does. A 
sense of decency should prevent him from feeding his 
Starving brothers in public. Sharing with others should 
be as natural as breathing, and as unconsciously per- 

l Acts, xi, 35. 



THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 377 

formed. Jesus and his disciples led a simple life, holding 
things in common. The early church to some extent 
seems to have followed this example. Whether the nar- 
rative in Acts is strictly historical or not, it reveals a 
Christian ideal. In the case of such and similar com- 
munistic experiments, it is not the outward form that is 
important, but the spirit. It matters little whether the 
common property of the church in Jerusalem was man- 
aged wisely by the apostles, how many sympathizers 
Ananias had, how far the distress that Paul's collections 
sought to relieve was the result of the form of communism 
practised, or to what extent the example set by the first 
church was followed by other disciples of Jesus in the 
early centuries. It is of profound significance that, under 
the influence of the spirit of Jesus, some of his followers 
proclaimed the great principle, "from each according to 
his capacity, to each according to his need." 

The deteriorating effect upon the inner life of man of the 
constant anxiety for the morrow did not escape the atten- 
tion of Jesus. He saw men shrunk and shriveled by corrod- 
ing cares, dwarfed in their development and marred beyond 
the semblance of humanity by the all-subduing, all-absorb- 
ing thought of bread. He heard men ask, "What shall we 
eat?" and "What shall we drink ?" and "Wherewithal 
shall we be clothed?" until all other questions were hushed, 
all other interests disappeared. And he understood that 
the deepest cause of this worry that kills is not to be found 
in abnormal social conditions but in an abnormal mental 
attitude. Men fail to apprehend the fact that their liveli- 
hood depends not only on their own exertions, but even more 
on the good will of their fellows and the bounty of nature. 
They fail to see that just in proportion as they seek the 
kingdom of heaven and its righteousness, the perfect order 
of society and its correct relations, their own needs as indi- 
viduals are met. They lack confidence. Nature is rich. 
Our planet is stocked with all things needful for the support 
of the human race, and the gratification of its varied tastes. 
Jesus was impressed with this ample provision for the 



378 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

humblest life, this beauty lavished on the most ephemeral 
creation. He reasoned from the less to the greater, and 
grew serene. The human race is rich. It possesses in its 
primal relationships a wealth of social sympathy that inures 
to the benefit of every individual, and in its collective enter- 
prises a potent means of conferring good upon all its mem- 
bers. Whatever the peculiar forms of domestic life may be, 
the facts indicated by such id and wife, 

father and mother, sou and daughter, brother and sister, 
suggest protection, care and sympathy. Kinship means 
security. Gradually, the moral i through 

kinship seek a wider field. 1 ant Off conquest new 

social organifl lop, and a new kinship, not based on 

blood, but on community of interest milarity of 

lectnal and moral life. This fraternity without blood- 
relationship | v.n ne lvcly the safety and 

welfare of the individual Jem reflected much upon the 
significance of the principle of brotherliness. In view of 

the abundant r e s ou rces of our home in nature and of the 
human family, a child of man may well cultivate an atti- 
tude of quiet contidei thing worry and 8 'road 

interests, generous sjrmpal nhite activity end a I 

ful disposition, even though the utilization of na: 
a and the fraternal 

t. We may hold in tinner irrasp the present 
BSpectB of th [Uestkm, and may readil. •• cer- 

tain limitations due to time and circumstance, but the un- 
derlying principles which ;. rmanent im- 
portance were touched by rful manner 
as to challenge forever the attention and - .msidera- 
tion o\' men 

The attitude of Jesus to the popular religions - and 

institutions o)^ his time, to saered persons, places, days and 

to public prayers, almsgiving, an 
increase the confidence of modern men in his leadership. 
He claimed for all men the rig! led to a pri 

ems to have cared nothing Cor the continuation 
of saeritices. would make the temple a house of prayer for 



THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 379 

all nations, and feared no evil for the cause of religion from 
its destruction. The evangelist who put upon his lips the 
statement that the time would come when men would 
worship neither in Jerusalem nor on Gerizim but would 
worship in spirit and in truth 1 understood the mind of his 
Master. He maintained that man has a right to determine 
what to do on the sabbath, since the sabbath was instituted 
for man 's benefit. He neglected and criticised sacred ablu- 
tions. He never ordained either baptism or eucharist. He 
disapproved of public prayers, publicly announced or dis- 
tributed gifts to the poor, and public fasts or displays of 
spiritual contrition. He was opposed to taxation for the 
maintenance of the religious cult, and to the use of force in 
the interest of religion. He criticised freely the scriptures, 
chose what seemed to him good, rejected what seemed to 
him bad. He appealed directly to the judgment of men. 
There is nothing about him that savors of the priest. It 
is impossible to conceive of him as smearing the horns of the 
altar with sacred blood, or swinging a golden censer, or 
chanting a litany, or elevating the host. In all these re- 
spects he appeals very strongly to those who seek to make 
religion a private affair, neither hindered nor assisted by 
the state, to free the religious sentiment from its bondage to 
formalism by relegating the modesties of the soul to the 
closet, and to insure the supremacy of the ethical element. 
His position is at once instructive and inspiring. It shows 
how gentleness and reverence may blend with liberty and 
boldness to achieve the most lasting results. 

That Jesus declined to assume the position of a Messiah, 
a king of Israel, though many ardent nationalists appar- 
ently urged him to head an insurrection, some of his most 
intimate disciples hoped that he might appear in the role 
of a Son of David, and not a few pious souls longed and 
prayed for a just and God-fearing native ruler, but pre- 
ferred to be known to the world as the Prophet of Nazareth, 
as one of the heralds of righteousness and truth his people 
had had, does not decrease, but increases, his glory in the 

1 John, iv, 23. 



380 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

eyes of thoughtful men. Had he actually cherished a <1 
.to rule over the Jews, and the other nations so far as they 
could be conquered, or to come back upon the clouds after 
his death with flaming fire to take vengeance upon his 
enemies, 1 some of his profoundest and most touching senti- 
ments would sound like hollow mockeries. He appears to 
us a nobler man because he I the temptation. For 

his sake and for ours we rejoice that he forbade his disciples 
to say that he w, ih. When he humbly depre- 

cates the tit !•■ ■ ■ I" on the ground that none is 

good but one, nan i, a maj« such 

as no >n eould ha it. There is not 

monarchical about Jesus. It is quite impossible to 
of him either as a <l on a 

throne, with a crown upon 1. in his 

hand I Li* ambition 

a del tion with him I a well-sounding 

phrase, that he ii greal i I who 

serves the dk 

greatness, Almost unwittingly and with the best intent, 

they misinten 'it utter;, 

and the early church ha- in a form 

that left the impression that him- 

to realize the high ideal he held up 1 ~. was 

anxious I to obtain 

power over the nairnns j f his author men, 

upon I 

nately. i; ink to remove the later ::d to 

■ive the truth that is better than tie lit of 
many general KM 

This ideal of service, h would not be of so g 

a value, if it were not joined to a very hi 

human nature. The spirit of the autoc: not more 
foreign 1 than the spirit of the slave. There was no 

touch of base obsequiousness in him. His mir. - that 

oH a free man. And he did not wit vility in 

others. He did not raise himself above tl. t human- 

1 Such were the notions cher the author of II Thess.. 



THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 381 

ity demanding authority and exercising lordship over his 
followers; he looked upon all men as his brothers, and 
wished to help them to live as sons of God, seeing the ele- 
ment of goodness and the vast potentialities in them. His 
sense of the worth of every human personality, his tender 
treatment of the bruised and wounded spirit, his delicacy 
in dealing with the tattered fragments of humanity, his 
reverence in the devastated shrine, characterize the spirit 
that is needed to lift mankind again. 

At the first view, Jewish and Christian eschatological 
schemes no doubt have the appearance of being utterly at 
variance with the order of ideas fostered by modern science. 
Sudden transformation scenes are no longer expected. 
Though we have no absolute guarantee that the earth may 
not perish at any time by what we are accustomed to call an 
accident, there is a strong and widespread confidence that 
our planet will live out its natural life and that long ages 
of human history lie before us, during which the race will 
gradually work out its destiny without any cataclysmic 
change or catastrophe. How far Jesus may have shared 
the common expectations of his time as to the ushering in 
of a new age by marvelous changes in nature and in human 
society, is extremely difficult to determine. But the 
prophet's eyes are always on the near future, and there 
is some reason to believe that Jesus expected the kingdom of 
heaven to come with power, the new social order to become 
manifest, in his own life-time. In fact he seems to have 
looked upon certain spiritual phenomena as indicating not 
only its approach but its actual presence. On the other 
hand, some of his parables apparently show that he did not 
expect a sudden and complete change of the world, but a 
gradual transformation. After all, the prophet is as 
clearly justified by the course of human events in looking 
for a sudden turning point in history, a judgment day upon 
things long undermined and ready to fall, a bursting forth 
of unexpected light, as he is forced by considerations of 
science to assume that the new will grow out of the old, and 
that the hour of birth will only reveal the life that has been 



382 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

long hidden. From the cold scepticism that sees in history 
a meaningless play of social forces, questions the value of 
any social ideal, and doubts whether one course of conduct 
should be followed rather than another, men may well turn 
again to the prophet of Nazareth to rekindle their faith in 
themselves, in duty and in destiny. 

A greater importance is given, in the teaching of Jesus, 
to the advent of the kingdom of heaven, the perfecting of 
human society, than to the future of the individual. This 
is an exceedingly significant fact. In his judgment, it was 
worth the while to live and to work, to suffer and to die, for 
the sake of the kingdom of heaven. No sacrifice, not even 
life itself, could be too great to hasten the coming of that 
heavenly society. He considered that in losing his life for 
what he conceived of as the highest good of the human race, 
a man in reality gained his life. Jesus seems to have hoped 
for himself and for those who should be accounted worthy 
of a resurrection from the dead a conscious, sexless, angel- 
like life beginning immediately after death. But his al- 
lusions to the fate of the individual are very few and of 
contested interpretation. It is perhaps possible to discern 
a conception of man's destiny beyond, developed at a time 
when Jewish eschatology was still in a fluctuating state, 
with a considerable degree of independence, but under the 
influence of surviving animistic ideas and a modified form 
of the Persian doctrine of a resurrection. On the other 
hand, Jesus dwells repeatedly and at length upon the com- 
ing kingdom of heaven, the social life that was to be, whose 
laws were binding upon the sons of the kingdom. Essen- 
tially this is the temper of hosts of men and women to-day, 
who are willing to live and strive and suffer, as suffer they 
must, and die, if need be, for the hope that is in them of a 
better social order, marked by greater justice, kindness, in- 
telligence, and beauty; who seek and find life for them- 
selves, rich, glorious and satisfying, in spending it to bring 
about the highest good of all ; and who maintain a calm and 
cheerful mood in the presence of the mystery of death, per- 
suaded that whatever survives, and in whatever form, of 



THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS 383 

physical force or spiritual energy, will continue to serve the 
high ends of existence to which life 's work was devoted. 

The supremacy of the ethical sense in Jesus is seen also 
in his peculiar religious attitude. Like the great prophets 
of his people he seems to have discarded the sacrificial cult, 
and he certainly looked with distrust upon all ritualistic 
performances, while he occasionally expressed his thought 
in spontaneous acts of symbolism. Unlike them, he never 
seems to have claimed mantic inspiration. None of his 
utterances has an oracular form. He did not speak in the 
name of Yahwe; he spoke for himself. He expressed his 
own convictions, and knew that they came from his own 
mind. Though a mystic, he does not appear to have been 
subject to fits of ecstasy or similar psychopathic conditions. 
He put no emphasis upon doctrinal belief. He judged men 
by their deeds rather than by their creeds. He did not 
qualify his approval of the good Samaritan by lamenting 
his heresy. But he esteemed the righteous inner disposition 
higher than the correct outward act, and regarded neither 
as meritorious. His God was not a task-master driving his 
slaves upon the earth, nor an employer of labor paying so 
much wages for so many hours of work, nor a director of a 
penitentiary punishing with so many stripes the sins of 
each culprit, but a father, just and kind, seeking by the best 
means the education and welfare of his children. Specula- 
tions upon the nature of the divine being seem to have been 
alien to his spirit. He would have been utterly bewildered 
by the Nicene creed. With all his heart he believed in the 
Good Spirit ; but it was the moral perfection of his heart 's 
ideal that attracted him. He longed to be like unto The 
Highest. Such a leader can only be welcomed by the many 
who have grown weary of sacramental magic, genuflexions 
and processions, ablutions and libations, infallible oracles 
and infallible priests, strange psychic experiences and 
wranglings over creeds, salvation by good deeds or orthodox 
professions, sales of indulgences and merits of the saints, 
fear of an angry God, and worship of an ignoble character. 
Such a guide is greatly needed by the many who have yet to 



384 THE PKOPHET OF NAZARETH 

learn that man cannot live by bread alone, but that by walk- 
ing in the path of duty, by following the vision of truth, and 
by seeking and loving The Highest shall man live; that, 
however the conventional standards may vary, our sense of 
obligation points to cosmic laws; that failure of adjust- 
ment is responsible for the impression of arbitrary power 
and irrationality in nature, which disappears with the grow- 
ing light and strength and rectitude of man ; that the deep- 
est secret of the infinite life in which we are imbedded can 
never be known to a finite being, but that the pure in heart 
may approach it and, in reverent contemplation, find a 
peace which passes understanding. 

Thus the thought of Jesus may, in numerous directions, 
become a stronger force in the life of the world than it has 
yet been. But far more potent than his word is his wonder- 
ful personality. It cannot be defined; names and titles 
utterly fail to do justice to it, Its subtle influence cannot 
be explained ; it can only be felt. The hearts of men burn 
within them, when he talks with them in the road. When 
he breaks to them the bread of life, their eyes are opened ; 
and though he vanishes from their sight, they can never for- 
get him. To have once come under his spell, is to be his 
forever. To know him, is to love him. 

It is an encouraging sign of the times that Israel, scat- 
tered among the nations, is beginning to appreciate the 
greatest of the prophets it has given to the human race. 
Some degree of acquaintance with his life and thought 
already exists among other non-Christian peoples. But it 
is very imperfect. In Asia and Africa there are hundreds 
of millions who have no knowledge of him. The leading 
representatives of the great missionary religions of the East, 
Buddhism and Islam, have as yet taken little interest either 
in studying the life and teachings of Jesus, or in encourag- 
ing their people to do so. The reasons are in part religious 
and in part political. They are under the impression that 
the true interests of the prophets whom they revere would 
suffer from a wide-spread knowledge of Jesus. In this 
they are quite mistaken. Those who have set before men 



THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS 385 

high ideals, raised their standards of morality, and inspired 
to noble conduct, have labored in a common cause. 
Gautama and Muhammad and every other prophet of the 
soul will be more truly honored and better understood by 
the nations to whom their names are dear, when Jesus of 
Nazareth shall be known and loved by them as well. There 
is more justification for the feeling that the spread of Chris- 
tianity may be a peril to their political independence and 
peculiar organization of society. But the exclusion of the 
thought of Jesus will not obviate this danger. For it is not 
responsible for the martial spirit and the commercial greed 
too characteristic of the so-called Christian nations. 
Thoughtful Brahmins, Buddhists, Muhammadans, and ad- 
herents of other forms of religion in the East should learn 
to distinguish between the things that Jesus stood for and 
the things taught and practised in his name, and also to 
make a distinction between the messages of their own 
prophets and the beliefs and customs to which their names 
have been forced to give sanction. There is much in the 
social life and the political institutions of the races living 
outside the pale of Christendom which is harmful and 
doomed to perish with the advance of civilization. Those 
who rightly love and cling to what is noblest in their ances- 
tral faith should gratefully avail themselves of the added 
strength and light a knowledge of Jesus would give in the 
common conflict against error and wrong. Christian mis- 
sionaries are endeavoring to make Jesus known throughout 
the earth. So far as they bring with them his spirit, they 
cannot fail to accomplish their noble end. But they fre- 
quently conceive it to be their mission to wean the affections 
of men away from the prophets whom they have loved, to 
root up and destroy one form of religious life in order to 
establish another form. This is a grievous error. A mis- 
sionary should be careful first to take out the beam of for- 
malism that is in his own eye in order to be better fitted to 
take out the mote that is in his brother's eye. 

The contact between different races, nations and classes 
of men grows closer every day. Elements of civilization, 
25 



386 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH 

creating a community of interests, are constantly diffused. 
Isolation becomes increasingly difficult. Strong moral and 
intellectual forces at work anywhere in the world quickly 
become operative over wide areas. Large bodies of men are 
bending their efforts, consciously and determinedly, to the 
realization of social ideals that seem to them desirable. The 
currents of human life point to changes, political and 
economic, social and religious, compared with which the 
revolutions of the past will seem insignificant. Prophets 
are heard announcing, in strident tones, the judgment that 
will come upon a world where are the slayers and the slain, 
the oppressors and their victims, the impostors and their 
dupes, the self-indulgent and the needy.- There are also 
seers who proclaim visions of good things to come, corn and 
oil and wine, short hours of labor, rich amusements, pleas- 
ant homes, long life and numerous offspring. Both classes 
are needed. But in the ages that lie before us men will 
learn to listen, with a deeper gratification, to the great 
prophet of Nazareth who, in the fullness of time, went forth 
to proclaim as good news the coming of the kingdom of 
heaven to earth as a reign of righteousness, mercy and truth. 



EXCURSUS A 



GNOSTICISM 



The importance of this great movement was first appre- 
ciated by Gottfried Arnold whose Kirchen- und Ketzer- 
geschichte (1699-1700) treated the Gnostics with unprece- 
dented sympathy and fairness. Massuet, in his edition of 
Irenaeus (1710), abandoned at least the patristic explana- 
tion of Gnostic heresy as due to moral depravity and hostil- 
ity to the Christian religion, though he characterized the 
Gnostics as " fanatics. " Mosheim also spoke of them .--is 
"fanatics," but earnestly endeavored to understand their 
thought as an expression of Oriental philosophy (Kezer- 
geschichte, 1748). Semler significantly compared them 
with theosophists like Boehme and Dippel (Einleitung zu 
Baumgarten's Untersuchungen, 1771, p. 119). Neander, in 
his Genetische Entwicklung der vomehmsten gnostischen 
Systeme, (1818), traced Gnosticism to Philo, while Lewald 
(De doctrina gnostica, 1818), looked for Zoroastrian influ- 
ences. A most important contribution to the study of Gnos- 
ticism was Barnes Die christliche Gnosis, (1835). Our 
knowledge of one important source was advanced by the re- 
searches of Bunsen (Hippolytus and Ms age, 1852), Yolk- 
mar (Hippolytus und die romischen Zeitgenossen, 1855), 
and Lipsius (Der Gnosticismus in Ersch und Grubers En- 
cyklopedie, 1860). Heinrici undertook a careful study of 
the Valentinian system (Die Valentinianische Gnosis, 
1871). Hilgenfeld presented, in his KetzergeschicJite des 
Urchristentums, (1884), what is known from patristic ac- 
counts in an admirable manner. New light has been thrown 
by the discovery of some of their own writings, notably the 
Pistis Sophia, translated into English by Mead (1898), the 
Books of Je'u published by Carl Schmidt in Texte und Un- 

387 



388 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

tersuchungen, VIII, and other works preserved in the 
Coptic, and a collection of Gnostic hymns in the Syriac. 
Harnack, in his Dogmengeschichte (1886-1890) and Chro- 
nologic der altchristlichen Literatur (1897), bases his ap- 
preciation upon these as well as upon the patristic testi- 
mony. 

Friedlander has sought to establish a Jewish origin for 
Gnosticism (Der vorchristliche judische G?wsticismus, 
1898) and has rendered it probable that the Ophites and 
other sects had a pre-Christian origin ; but his attempt to 
prove that the Talmudic Minim are Gnostics rather than 
Christians and that the gilyonim are diagrams like the one 
described by Celsus rather than "g must be regarded 

as a failure. While the contention of the Tubingen school 
that the apostle Paul was caricatured by Jewish Christians 
under the masque of Simon Magna still holds true, there is 
at present a tendency to assume that Simon actually existed 
and exercised an influence in shaping the Gnostic move- 
ment. The philosopher Kreyenbuhl, who looks to Gnos- 
ticism for the salvation of the modern world, regards the 
A po pliasis Mr gale, or Great Revelation, found in the Philo- 
sophumena of Hippolytns, >rk of Simon, and 

the Fourth Gospel as a work of his disciple Menander of 
Kapparetaea (Das Evangdium nach d> r Wahrhcit. 1900). 
Either assumption seems to be untenable. But the - 
pathetic study of Gnosticism by this thinker cannot fail to 
be productive of good results. Delff, in his Qeschickti 
Rabbi Jcsu von Xazara (1889), assuming a large part of the 
Fourth Gospel to come from an eye-witness, the presbyter 
John, maintained that Jesus himself was a Gnostic. I! 
(Die Ophite n. 1889) called attention to some indications of 
Jewish Gnosticism likely to be older than the appearance 
of the Ophites as a Christian sect. 

W. Anz made an important contribution to the study of 
Gnosticism (Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnosticis- 
mus. 1897), by pursuing the central idea of the ascent of 
the soul and the important cultic performance of baptism 
back to Babylonian conceptions and practices. He was 



EXCUESUS A 389 



aided by the publication in recent times of numerous re- 
ligious texts from different periods of Babylonian history 
and especially by Brandt's translations of Mandaic texts. 
The Mandaeans are the only known pagan Gnostic sect, but 
it is no easy task to separate the early stratum in the Genza 
and the Qolasta, not yet affected by a superficial knowledge 
of Judaism and Christianity, from the later parts. There 
is no doubt that Anz is right in assuming a dominant influ- 
ence of Babylonian speculation in the formation of 
Gnosticism. He admits an additional Persian element. 
But the close relations between India and Bactria must not 
be overlooked. With a strong missionary religion then 
flourishing in India, its influence upon the types of religious 
thought in the Parthian empire cannot be questioned. 

Grill has forcibly argued that Indian thought had much 
to do with the origin of Gnosticism (Entstehung des vierten 
Evangeliums, 1901). It is evident that the great Gnostic 
systems of the second century were the products of ideas 
and tendencies of thought, of different provenience and age, 
existing in the Hellenistic world before it came in contact 
with Christianity ; but the historian is not justified in assum- 
ing the existence of a Valentinian system before Valen- 
tinus or in overlooking the later coloring given to the 
thought of great teachers by their disciples and the distor- 
tion of their statements in the reports of their enemies. 



EXCURSUS B 

THE COLL® BHTDfA 

Wiszowazzi, a grandson of Fau^ ini, relates in his 

Narralio com >n before 1678 and published 

as an appendix to E BibUotkeca antitrinitationm 

(1684), thai about the year 1546 re ags were 

held in Vic* n/a, i nded by circa forty mem- 

bers, at which tic- doctrine <-i" t!;.' Trinity was qu 
Among the parti :ii, Giulio 

(Qherlandi) of T a) of Rovigo. 

Sand himself, who may haw had a<-< r sources 

or made larger excerpts from the Biography of Lelio, men- 
tions, besides th< rnardino Oehino, Nicolao Pa- 
nda, Valentino I i, Paolo Ah 
and others, Lubieniecky, in his // mationis 
Polonica* 1 16£ . tells substantially the same i! 
While maintaining that this family tradition contains a 

toric nucleus, Tresche] [Dit protesUtni Antitrini- 

iarii r, i v lt. II, 39] IT.) thought that the question* 

have been dii at Vieen ime been 

raised, but represented later "Soeinian" speculation. 

The discovery of the document of the Inquisition iu V 
ice (see pp. 19, 137) puts these fame'. jia Yiccntina 

in an entirely new light It is seen that numerous Baptist 
churches in Italy and Switzerland cherished views con 
ing the person of al than those held by 

the later Soeinians. Well known reformers, like Curione, 
Negri and Camillo, not hither: (ted of bein<r Bap* 

are found to have been members of these churches. Discus- 
sions o\ f precisely the kind intimated by \Y i had ap- 
parently gone on for some time in the Baptist church 
Italy, when the Council was held. The prevailing type of 

390 



EXCUKSUS B 391 



doctrine was that of the churches in Switzerland which had 
adopted Denck's position, while the influence of Servetus 
was less marked. And some of the participants in the 
Vicentine gatherings appear again four years later at the 
Council of Vicenza. There is no reason to doubt that there 
was a Baptist church at Vicenza in 1546, or that it was oc- 
cupied then with questions concerning the person of Jesus. 
The only serious difficulty about Wiszowazzi 's account is the 
presence of Ochino. We know that he was appointed 
preacher to the Italians in Augsburg in December, 1545, 
and that he escaped from the city during the siege in Janu- 
ary, 1547. Unless it be supposed that he went to Ferrara 
and Venice in 1546, which is not wholly impossible, was in- 
vited by his friends to the meetings of the Baptists, and re- 
turned again to Augsburg, his presence must be seriously 
doubted. It is also noticeable that in his published works 
he never can be said to question the Trinity, though he is 
persistently charged with anti-trinitarian views. Yet his 
last defense of the orthodox doctrine is weaker than one 
would expect from a man of his ability, when speaking his 
mind freely and setting forth deep-seated convictions. 
Concerning Lelio Sozzini himself, we know that he was in 
Venice in 1546. 



EXCURSUS C 



TIIE RESURRECTION 



The later narrat ike xxiv. John xx, Mark xvi, 9-20) 

describe appearances of fter death to his eleven 

disciples in Jerusalem. An earlier tradition knows of no 
such appearances in that city. Aeeor Matth. xxviii, 

16-20 it was in GaliL 

Mark's account if <. Hut the angel announces tliat 

a will appear t<> his disci] In 

the < tospel of an occur now I 

else than in Galilee, though the text I S before it is 

described. Thai the authors of Matthew and Mark should 
have passed by these app 

salem on the third day as unworthy of record, it I 

ever heard of them, is quil able. Luke's account 

of the two disciples Of Kmmaus ami his casual allusion to an 
appearance to Simon are not supported by John, whi! 

;' the appean 
those who were with them," his leading them o thany 

and his ascension to heaven from th; third 

day differs widely from John's narrative of the appearances 
oi* Jeans first to all the disci] pt Thomas but to no 

other persons with them, on the third da;. 

then, one week later, to all the difl including 

Thomas. While our two earliest reveal no knowl- 

edge o\' any such experiences on the part of the disciples 
in Jerusalem, Luke makes no mention of any a] 

9 in Galilee, either on a mountain (as Matth. xxviii, 16) 
or at the sea v^^ Peter 60 and the appendix to the Fourth 
Gospel, John xxi. 1 ffi.) Luke's attitude can be readil 
counted for, as the earlier appearances in Jerusalem must 
have seemed to him far more important than the later one 

in 



EXCUESUS C 393 



in Galilee. The same is probably true of the author of the 
longer appendix to Mark. The editor of the Fourth Gospel 
felt that for completeness sake this should be added, espe- 
cially as his version gave an opportunity of presenting the 
relative importance of Peter and John. Hence the addition 
of xxi, 1-23. 

Already Matthew and Mark are familiar with the tradi- 
tion that some women had found the tomb of Jesus empty 
and had been told by angels to inform his disciples that he 
would go before them into Galilee. The women, the angels, 
and the empty sepulchre appear also in the later gospels, 
but the appointment of a meeting in Galilee has disap- 
peared. Characteristic of the freedom with which the 
earlier accounts were treated by later writers is the change 
of Matthew : ' ' Tell his disciples .... he goes before you 
into Galilee" (xxviii, 7) into Luke's "Remember he spoke 
to you when he was yet in Galilee" (xxiv, 6). Concern- 
ing the events at the tomb there is the most bewildering dif- 
ference of statements. There is no agreement as to who 
the women were (Mary Magdalene, Mary Magdalene and 
another Mary, the two Marys and Salome, or the two Marys 
and Joanna) ; and whether they were alone or accompanied 
by Peter and John on a second visit ; when they started out 
(on Saturday night or Sunday morning) ; why they went 
(to view the sepulchre or to anoint Jesus with spices) ; 
whether the tomb had a military guard or not ; whether one 
angel or two appeared ; whether the angel sat on the stone 
outside or sat within the tomb; what the angel or angels 
said ; whether or not Jesus himself appeared to the women ; 
and whether or not the women reported what they had seen. 
No careful historian would feel justified in drawing from 
these confused, contradictory and mutually exclusive stories 
the inference that a tomb closed with a heavy stone into 
which Jesus had been laid was by some women found to be 
empty on the third day. Schmiedel, in his admirable dis- 
cussion of the Resurrection and Ascension Narratives in En- 
cyclopaedia Biblica, goes so far as to see in Mark's state- 
ment "they said nothing to any one" an admission that the 



394 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH 

story of the empty sepulchre was a novelty first introduced 
by himself. But the bearing of this phrase depends upon 
what followed it in the original Mark. It is difficult to be- 
lieve that the author who recorded a solemn in j inaction t » 
the women by an angel to deliver a most important message 
from the risen Master should have wished to leave the im- 
pression that they not only failed immediately to carry the 
good the disciples but never communicated their 

marvelous experience until he came into -n of the 

fads and proclaimed them. Ilarnaek (I: 
Evangeliumt det Peti -. 18 I) thinks that P 

1 was tal : the original en< Mark, and in 

this he may be right Hut the women 

the Gospel of Peter to give any iples. 

"And they said nothing ' for they were at": 

is probably an editorial gloss, introdo esent 

close of the gospi had be l. haying 

i explain why the disciples did d 

lee but remained in Jerusalem to see their ed there. 

Matth. wviii undoubtedly much late material. 

The last 

in the fourth century still containing I simp! rini- 

tarian form of the I I formula: vss 9 and 10 are 

generally interpolations; vss 11-15 are 

probably also later than 1-8, 16, and pcar- 

ance of being secondarj. In some respects Matth. x^viii. 
ual than Mark xvi. 1-S. There is a 
distinct advance from the more natural visit to see the tomb 
on Saturday night immediately after the Sabbath hi 
to the visit on the following morning with spices to anoint 
the body of he number of women is increased in 

Mark: the coming o^l an ingel to roll away th stone 

and seating himself upon it is far more natural than his 
Bitting within the tomb and being discovered there; 
Nazarene" is added in Mark: Peter is mentioned in addi- 
tion to the other diseiples in Mark ; to avoid repetition Mark 
omits in vs 7 an essential part of the message "he is risen 
from the dead:" Mark changes "Behold. I have told J 



EXCUESUS C 395 



into "as he said to you." On the other hand, Matth. 
xxviii, 4 is occasioned by the story of the watch which ap- 
pears to be a late insertion. Unfortunately, we have no 
means of knowing whether the original Aramaic gospel con- 
tained the story of the empty sepulchre. 

As for the fulfilment of the angel's promise that Jesus 
should show himself to his disciples in Galilee, Matthew de- 
scribes an appearance which took place on a mountain there, 
the eleven disciples seeing him and worshiping, though 
some doubted, while the appendix to John relates how Jesus 
showed himself to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and 
the Gospel of Peter likewise sets out to record an appearance 
at the sea, though Andrew and Levi who are especially men- 
tioned in Peter are not referred to in John xxi. Here again 
there is an advance from "the eleven disciples" in Matth. 
to the emphasis upon Peter in John xxi and Peter 60, pos- 
sibly also from the apparition before whom the disciples 
prostrate themselves in Matth. to the Lord who eats bread 
and fish with his "little children" in John xxi. 

It is doubtful whether critical students would have been 
inclined to assume a kernel of historic truth in Matth. 
xxviii, 16 ff. if it had not been for I Cor. xv, 3-8. The ac- 
count given in this passage differs from all others especially 
in two respects : it seems to assume that the appearances of 
Jesus to his immediate disciples were of the same character 
of celestial visions as those of Paul and it gives an enumer- 
ation of such visions apparently intended to be exhaustive 
which by its exclusions, inclusions and order distinguishes 
it in a marked degree from the gospels. Jesus is said to 
have appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to 
five hundred brethren at once, then to James, then to all the 
apostles, and finally to Paul as to one born too early. That 
the last phrase, wholly inapplicable in its ordinary sense, 
can only be explained by a reference to its meaning in the 
Valentinian system of Gnostic thought, was first seen by 
Straatman (Kritische Studien, II, 196 ff.) who was led to 
reject the whole passage as spurious. Brandt (Evangelische 
Geschichte, 1893, p. 414 ff.) recognizes the correctness of 



396 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH 

Straatman's observation on the meaning of ektroma, but 
deems it sufficient to regard this word as a later gloss, and 
to assume that vss. 3-7 constitute an earlier account quoted 
by Paul. Schmiedel (I. c.) thinks that Paul received this 
information when he visited Jerusalem three years after his 
conversion. Either assumption is exposed to grave diffi- 
culties. If already within a decade or two after the death 
of Jesus a tradition concerning the number and order of 
his post-mortem appearances had fixed r : irmly in 

apostolic circles i !em as to take the shape of a creed 

preached and believed, it is not easy to account for the de- 
velopment of our greatly divergent gospel narratives. The 
element! of faith that are alto Irop'are as remarkable 

as the elements added. An appearance of Jesus to five hun- 
dred brethren is permitted to vanish eompl d appear- 
ance to James, the brother ol .here 
except in the (iospel of the Hebrew! where it occurs in a 
highly Legendary form at least in the da; :-ome ; an 
appearance to the twelve which, if tin 

include Matthias who was ell Bt he place of Judas 

is passed by; an appearance t<> all the *, by whk 

distinction from the twelve a rcle of missionaries is 

Likely to be intended, is Likewise eliminated, even the ap- 
pearancc to P mod worthy of more than 

a panning allusion. Of even greater importance than this 
abandonment of testimony to the appei - him- 

self is the change o\' em] pels put the most 

stress upon the i la at the empty tomb 

announcing the resurrection, and from t ; ruz-point 

go on to narrate the man :is of th- who has 

come out of the tomb with t!esh and bones, in their 

emphasis and wealth of details as they are further rem 
from the time of Jesus. Is it probable that Matthew should 
have deliberately alighted the tradition current in the 
mother-ehureh, stamped with the authority of the apostles, 
and handed over from Jerusalem to the Gentile churches, 
and instead of this taken his stand upon the report of some 
women that they had seen an angel and found the tomb 



EXCUESUS C 397 



empty? And is it likely that no subsequent evangelist 
should have come upon this tradition or deemed it worthy 
of serious attention ? Can it be supposed that authors who 
set such store by the visions of angels actually were preju- 
diced against "mere visions" of the risen Messiah § These 
questions become especially pertinent, if it is assumed that 
an epistle containing this original apostolic tradition had 
for half a century or more been in circulation among those 
for whom the gospels were written. That every evangelist 
should have "happened" to overlook one of the earliest 
Christian classics, is a somewhat hazardous supposition. 
The more closely the account in I Cor. xv, 3-8 is examined, 
the more clearly its peculiar features point to a compara- 
tively late date, when "the twelve disciples" were the ob- 
ject of much reverence, the term "apostles" designated a 
larger body, as in the Didache, facts gleaned from different 
sources were joined together into brief creedal statements, 
the tendency to extend over a long period the appearances 
of Jesus was marked, and at least in some circles the ac- 
counts of such appearances were interpreted as referring 
to visions of a heavenly figure, in harmony with a peculiar 
view of the character of the celestial body possessed by those 
who are brought from death into eternal life. 

When the character of this passage is scrutinized, the 
theory that the belief in the resurrection of Jesus originated 
in visions loses its strongest support. While it is by no 
means improbable that the nervous tension caused by the 
daily expectation of his return as the Messiah here and there 
led to genuine ecstatic experiences in which his face was seen 
and his voice was heard, the documentary evidence of such 
visions is not sufficient. Nor could such visions have pro- 
duced the conviction that he had risen from the dead on the 
third day. That conviction was engendered by faith in the 
prophetic word and in its application to Jesus. It was 
probably in Galilee that the disciples began to proclaim 
their earnest conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead 
according to the Scriptures and would soon return to them. 
The expectation of such a return of a dead ruler or teacher 



398 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH 

is not an uncommon phenomenon in history. AVith dread 
or hope the people looks for a Nero, Charlemagne, or Bar- 
barossa to come back from long, mysterious concealment. 
The expected reappearance of some dead Imam or Mahdi 
is a constant source of anxiety to the Muhammadan author- 
ities, [f in some such instances the belief has been that the 
heroes in reality never died, a quite miraculous preservation 
is ah ad at bottom the early belief in the 

case of JeSQfl was not very different. God would not allow 
his holy one to Bee corruption, or hand his BOU] over to 
SheoL Before tin* soul had finally left the body, reanima- 
tion had taken place, and tli - miracu- 

lously continued As long as the place wh had lain 

him was unknown, there was no motive for further specula- 
tion about his resting-place. He was not there, he was risen. 
But when a fulfilment was Bought for the prophecy i;. 
liii, 9 that the Servant of Yahwe shonM "h tomb 

with tin' wicked and he with the rich in his death," in! 
in his tomb would naturally develop. When the 
know what had happened at this tomb had once awakened, 
the growth l •: lid not be stopped. And tfc 

likely to have occurred at an early date, 
ance of an angel on the third day that he had risen and 

would be seen in Galilee Buffieed. Then faith d< 
that he should have 1 on that very day in the vicin- 

ity o\' the tomb. Gradually the thought s. have 

grown familiar that daring a longer period he had often 
come back to convince and instruct his «: for their 

world-mission, while the outward form of his appearing 
would naturally be conceived in harmony with the more ma- 
terialistic or more spiritual idea entertained of the r 
rection body. But as the ultimate cause of this entire 
development was the ineradicable impression of the person- 
ality of Jesus, so each step reveals something of the grow- 
ing sense of his worth and attachment to his cause. 



INDEX 



I. INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



Abba! 33, 153, 154, 361. 
Abel's sacrifice, 54, 58. 
Adam, 39, 57. 
Ablutions, 60, 275, 379. 
Abraham, numen of Hebron, 40, 
54, 57. 

his sacrifice, 54, 59. 

his seed, 37, 40, 41. 
Acts of the Apostles, 185-187. 

of John, 170-185. 

of Paul and Thecla, 185. 

of Peter, 170. 
Adapa, 119. 
Adoptionism, 136. 
Advent, second, 

of dead prophets, 46. 

of translated heroes, 83. 

of Jesus, 321. 
Akiba, Kabbi, 89. 
Albigenses, 136. 
Allegorical method, 7, 12. 
Alexander the Great, 245, 249. 
Alexander Balas, 76. 
Alexander Jannaeus, 66. 
Alziati, Paolo, 137, 390. 
Alogi, 160, 207. 
'Anani' "the Man on the Clouds' ' 

130. 
Angel of the Covenant, 54, 63. 
Angels, degraded gods, 63. 
Animal sacrifices, 59. 
Anointing of kings, 71. 
Antiochus Epiphanes, 55, 63, 75. 
Antichrist, 64. 
Antitype, 36. 



Apophasis Megale, 388. 
Aramaic Gospel, 205, 218, 219, 

220, 223, 228, 230, 231, 232. 
Aramaic Targums, 3, 90, 91, 166, 

167, 229. 
Aramati, 45, 67. 
Arianism, 16. 
Aristobulus I., 73. 
Aristobulus II., 71. 
Ark of the Covenant, 60. 
Arminianism, 22. 
Arnauld, Antoine, 333. 
Astrological view of the world, 65, 

243 ff. 
Assumption of Moses, 82. 
Avatars, 213. 

Babylonian mythology, 118. 

Balaam's curse, 37, 41. 

Balder, 17. 

Banus, 86, 256. 

Baptism, 53, 56, 60, 222, 257, 259, 

261, 313, 316, 379. 
Baptists, 19, 22, 136 ff, 160, 207, 

326, 329, 331, 390, 391. 
Barbarossa, 398. 
Bar Eldha, 145. 
Barnabas, 187, 200. 
Bar 'nasha, 107, 111, 112, 114, 

115, 117, 120, 127, 128, 129, 

130, 131, 133. 
Bar nefele, 130. 

Baruch, Apocalypse of, 83, 184. 
Basilides, 15, 211. 
Bathsheba, 68. 



399 



400 



INDEX 



Bau, 82. 

Begotten 'God' or 'Son,' 13, 14 

Bene Elohim, 142, 143. 

Ben-Sotada, 250, 251. 

Bereh-de-gabra, 127, 128, 130. 

Bereh de-'nasha, 127, 128. 

Bereh de-bar 'nasha, 127, 128. 

Beth Ephrathah, 38, 46. 

Bethsaida, 266. 

Bhagavadgita, 347. 

Bogh, Slavonic divinity, 17. 

Biandrata, Giorgio, 1 

Boethusians, 182. 

Brethren of the Free Spirit, 136. 

Brethren of the United Life, 136. 

Buddhism, 384, 385. 

Bythos, 170. 

Caiaphas B86, 287. 
Cain Kmites, 

.:2S, 320. 
Camillo Senate, 
Canaan, curse oi . 
Canticle s, character of, N 

Capernaum, ft 

Catholic Epistles, 191-193. 
Cerinthus, 100, . 
Chaamu-Venus, 83. 
Chalazath-Yenus, 83. 

Charlemagne, 398. 

Chorazin, 968. 
Chrcstus, 178. 
Christ-conception. 3, 4, 7-0. 
Christian experieno 
Chri8to-centric the. 
Christus, 174. 177, 
Christian}. 177. 
Ciasca's Diatessaror.. 
Circumcision, 55, 
Cities of refuge, 61* 
Claude of Savoy, 137 
Clementine Epistles, 1S7, 188. 
Collegia riccntina, 390, 391. 
Conjunctio maxima. 
Cosmic moral laws, 359. 



Cosmic year, 65. 

Council of Venice, 19, 391. 

Covenant, the new, 38, 53. 

Creed-making, 1, 2, 11, 30. 

Criticism of Jesus, 32. 

Crusades, 324. 

Curione, Celio Secundo, 390. 

Cyrus, Yahwe's King, 47, 74. 

Daniel's 'Son of man,' 38, 50, 

85, 97, 100, 115, 118, 111', 

128, 132. 

is Hystaspis, 70. 
David as a poet. 
"Davidic," or royal hymns, 69, 

70. 

I 

43, 44. 
David. 

Dedication, feast of, 66, 214. 
Deification of men, 2, 3. 
Deist* 

Dionysus, 14. 
Deluge myth, 56. 
Denck, estimat- 
Didachf, 183, 194. 
Divinity of kings, 43, 44. 144. 
Dusares, 83. 

Ebionites, 1 

Ebionitish Acts of the Apostles, 

185. 
Ecclesiasto- 

Ecclesiasticus xliv ff, author- 
ship of. 
Ektroma, 395, 396. 
Eleazar, Bar Kozeba 's associate, 

90. 
Elipandus of Toledo. 
Elusa-Chalazath. 
Enoch, Ethic; 

iss. 

Enoch, Slavonic. 
Ephod. 60, 61. 
Erythraean Sibyl, 



INDEX 



401 



Esau, 53, 58. 

Essenes, 27, 86, 110, 254, 256, 
323. 

Eucharist, 53, 284, 285, 379. 

Euhemerism, 3. 

Evangel iarium Eierosolymitanum, 
128, 153, 219. 

Evolution, doctrine of, 25, 28, 
29, 66, 67. 

Ezekiel 's ' ' Messianic ' ' prophe- 
cies, 38, 49. 

Ezra, Apocalypse of, 83, 117, 144, 
145, 184. 

Fatherhood of God, 152-155, 295. 
Felix of Urgel, 136. 
Fourth Gospel, 211 ff. 
Fox, George, 333. 
Francis of Assisi, 18. 
Francke, August, 22. 

Garden of Eden myth, 39. 
Gentile, Valentino, 138. 
Gherlandi, Giulio, 137, 390, 398. 
Gilyonim, not diagrams, 388. 
Giuliano of Milan, 330. 
Gnosticism, 12, 15, 16, 133, 151, 

160, 213, 214, 387-389. 
Gnostic Acts of the Apostles, 185. 
God3 having human offspring, 

143, 249. 
Gog and Magog, 91. 
Gospel ace. to Matthew, 218 ff. 

14 " Mark, 224 ff. 

1 ' " Luke, 225 ff . 

" " John, 207-217. 

" " Peter, 206, 207. 

" " Hebrews, 205, 206. 

" " Ebionites, 206. 

" " Egyptians, 206. 

11 " Nicodemus, 207. 
Gribaldo, Matteo, 137. 
Groote, Gerhard, 18. 
Gula, 82. 

Haetzer, Ludwig, 137. 



Hagar, Arabian tribe, 53, 57. 

Haggai's "desire of all na- 
tions/ ' 39, 50. 

Hammurabi's Code, 301, 370. 

Hamon, Jean, 333. 

Hasmonaean kings, 44, 68, 69. 

Hegelian philosophy, 24. 

Hellenism, 4, 200-204. 

Herborn Bible, 21. 

Hero-worship, 2. 

Herod the Great, 241, 242, 243, 
247. 

Herod Antipas, 257 ff. 

Herod Boethus, 266. 

Herodias, 266. 

Hesu, Keltish divinity, 17. 

Hesychius, 13. 

Hezekiah, 70. 

Hillel, 355. 

Hofmann, Melchior, 138. 

Homoousion 17, 322. 

Eovwiousion, 322. 

Hosea's prophecy of resurrection, 
38, 45. 

Hubal-Allah, 60. 

Hyrcanus, son of Tobias, 30, 50. 

Ignatian Epistles, 188-191. 

Imitatio Christi, 325. 

Immanuel, 47. 

Indian influence, 169. 

Invisible Church, 63. 

Isaac, numen of Beersheba, 48, 
57. 

Isaiah 's * ' Messianic ' ' prophe- 
cies, 38, 46, 47. 

Ishara, 82. 

Ishtar, 57, 82. 

Islam, 384. 

James, Epistle of, 191. 
Jacob, numen of Shechem, 40, 58. 
Jacob of Kef ar Sekanyah, 252. 
Jason, the high-priest, 50, 71. 
Japhet in Noah's curse, 40, 
Jehoiachin, 69. 



402 



INDEX 



Jeremiah's " Messianic ' ' prophe- 

, cies, 38, 48, 49. 
Jerome 's ' ' Hebrew ' ' Gospel, 205. 
Jesus, 

born in Galilee, 240. 

in the town of Nazareth, 243. 

not in Bethlehem, 243, 246, 

247. 
not a Davidic descendant, 

247, 248. 
not illegitimate, 255. 
son of Joseph and Mary, 240, 

248. 
probably 8 B, ('., MO, 243 ff. 
B earpent«r f not a rabbi, 251, 

familiar with Hebrew B 
hires, 251. 

especially attracted by the 

prophets, 
acquainted with Essenic 

thought, I 

influenced by John the Bap- 
tist. I 
baptized, probably early in 

alone in the wilderness 
868. 

appearing as a prophet, 

claiming no mantic inspira- 
tion. 

curing d 80S. 

befriending the outcast, 268. 

not an ascetic. Bfl 
rejecting Sabbat'. 

270. 
gathering disciples, 870, -71. 
preaehing on the mount, 

273. 
visited by Pharisees from 

Jerusalem. '274. 
rejecting ablutions, 
breaking with O. T. tabus, 

going iuto exile. '276. 



visiting Caesarea Philippi, 
276. 

rejecting Messiahship and all 
lordship, 277, 278, 280. 

coldly received in Caper- 
naum, 278. 

criticising temple tax, 279. 

going through Peraea, 279. 

quietly entering Jerusalem, 
281. 

attacking the sacrificial cult, 
282. 

attacked by the Sadducecs, 
282. 

rejecting dream of inde- 
pendence, 283. 

anointed by a woman, 
284. 

eating with his disciples, 

praying in Gethsemane. 
arrested in the garden. - 
tried by irregular session of 

Sanhedrin, 286. 
delivered to Pilate by Caia- 

ph 
delivered to the Jews by Pi- 

probably neither mocked nor 

crucified by the Jews, 288, 

having his garments divided, 

relieved with wine and 

myrrh, 288. 
uttering inarticulate cry, 288. 
probably buried in Joseph 's 

tomb. 290. 
on a Fri : . 
in some year between 29 and 

\ TA. 201. 
exen t post-humous 

influence. 319 ff. 
through the impression of hia 

life. 319. 



INDEX 



403 



through his death as a mar- 
tyr, 318. 
through his teaching, 319. 
through the Messiahship 

ascribed to him, 319, 320. 
through his deification, 322. 
claiming present leadership, 

360 ff. 
as a seeker after truth, 361. 
as a deep and earnest think- 
er, 361, 362. 
as an artist, 362, 363. 
as a social reformer, 364 ff. 
having a message to the mod- 
ern world, 354, 360 ff . 
interested in its vital ques- 
tions, 360 ff. 
capable of inspiring and 

guiding, 360 ff . 
uniting his influence with 
every upward tendency in 
the race, 385, 386. 
Job's Redeemer, 37, 41, 42. 
Jochanan ben Torta, 89. 
Jochanan ben Zakkai, 182. 
Joel's predictions, 38, 45, 46. 
John, the Apostle 

alleged residence in Ephesus, 

209-211. 
probable martyrdom in Pales- 
tine, 209-211. 
epistles ascribed to, 191. 
John the Baptist, 256 ff ., 266, 267. 
John, the Presbyter, 192, 210, 211. 
Jonah as a sign, 38. 
Jonathan, the high-priest, 71. 
Joshua ben Hananiah, 182. 
Joshua ben Jehozadak, 71. 
Jozedek, the ' ' shoot, ' ' 48. 
Josephus 

disciple of Banus, 86, 256. 
acquainted with Messianic 

idea, 86, 87. 
silent as to Christianity, 180, 
181. 



familiar with story of John 
the Baptist, 257, 258. 
Jubilees, Book of, 82. 
Judas, son of Ezekias, 87. 
Judas, the Galilean, 87. 
Judas Iscariot, 37, 43, 285, 286. 
Jude, Epistle, 191, 192. 

iTa-conception, 165 

Kautz, Jacob, 137. 

Kenites, 58, 59. 

Kingdom of heaven, 32, 36, 
295 ff., 323. 

Kossuth, Louis, Bar Kozeba com- 
pared with, 90. 

Labadie, Jean de, 22, 333. 
Ladders for the gods, 63. 
Legitimist tendencies, 72, 73. 
Leontopolis, temple of, 76. 
Levi, son of Alphaeus, 268. 
Logos 

mythical basis of, 161. 

foreign influence on idea of, 
161, 162. 

in Greek thought, 163-166. 

in Philo, 166-168. 

in the Fourth Gospel, 159, 
169-170, 213 ff. 

in the Targums, 166, 167. 

in Gnosticism, 170. 

spermatilcos, 165, 168, 172. 

endiathetos, 165, 168, 171, 
172. 

prophoriTcos, 165, 168, 171, 
172. 
Logia Jesu, 170, 227. 
Lollards, 136. 
Loisy, A., 341. 

Luke, origin and date of, 235 ff. 
Luther, estimate of, 326, 327. 

Machaerus, 266. 
Magnificat, the, 250. 
Marcion 's Gospel, 225 ff . 



404 



INDEX 



Marcionitea, 136. 

Mark, origin and date of, 224 ff . 

Marduk, 75, 118. 

Martini, Kudolph, 137. 

Mary Magdalene, 269. 

Matthew, origin and date of, 

221 ff. 
Melchizedek, 57, 58, 163. 
Melito, 210. 
Memra, 166. 
Menelaus, 50. 
Menander of Kapparota.-a. I'll, 

388. 
Messiah ben Joseph. 
Messiah, 

anointed by Elijah 

first reference in 80 B 
68 n\ 

translated Davi.li. 

ant, 83. 

uric prop] 
a misnomer, 

thriving only in Pal. 

5X 

Ifiehi 

Minim. 181, 388. 
Missi 

Modcin, -!»'■ 
Muhamniadanism, 385. 

M watof i t m wm , 

Mysticism. L8. 

Xaravana, 1 3 ." > . 

Nebnehadi . 03. 

i. Franeeeeo, 187, 390. 

Neo Kantianism. 

Nfeheminh, 72. 

Nero, 

Xoronie persecution. 177. 

Now moons, 

Xinik 

Noah, Apocalypse of, 85. 
(foetus, 16. 



Noetians, 136. 
Nominalism, 17, 18. 

Panthera, 200. 

Paraclete, 215. 

Parthenogenesis, 249. 

Paruta, Nicolao, 390. 

Pagan references to Christianity, 

17; 
-ables of Enoch, 30, 85, 132, 
Parables of Jesus 

lost coin, 22^, 311. 

lost sheep, 228, 311. 

lost son, 288, 31 L 

vineyard, 

tah I 

un rd, 307. 

sower, 308, 363. 

leaven, 308. 

mustard seed, 308. 

fishes, 308. 

plant, 309. 

risee and Publican, 228, 
313. 

Good Sarnari- 63. 

I and Laxarua, 363. 

foolish virgins, 363. 

widow, 363. 

shepherd. 
Passagii, 136. 
Pass 14. 

Pataliput- 
Patarenes, 

Paul of Samosata, 16. 
Paul of Ta- 

a cq u a i n t e d with Stoic 
thou. 

representative of ITelenism, 

author of five extant 
ties I ff. 

Paul and Seneca. 1 I 
Paulia- 
Paulicians. 
Pauline Epistles 
Pent 66. 



INDEX 



405 



Periodicity of history, 64-66. 
Peter, Epistle of, 192, 193. 
Pharao, — type of the devil, 55, 

63. 
Philo, 

silence concerning Christian- 
ity, 179. 

Messianic idea of, 81. 

Logos-conception of, 166-168. 
Pietism, 22, 23, 334, 335. 
Pistis Sophia, 387. 
Plan of salvation, 35, 36. 
Pompey, 68. 
Port-Royalists, 333. 
Poverty, 352. 
Priene-inscription, 144. 
Prophets, 

as soothsayers, 73, 74. 

like Moses, 37, 41. 

false and true, 73, 74. 
Protestant Church, 341 ff. 
Protevangel, 36. 
Protevangelium Jacobi, 207. 
Public utilities, 353. 
Purusha, 133 
Pythagoreanism, 255. 

Quakerism, 22, 333, 334, 364. 
Quirinius, 241. 

Rachel 's lament, 49. 
Racine, Jean, 333. 
Rationalism, 23, 24, 337. 
Resurrection in general, 

Pharisaic view of, 283. 

Essene view of, 255. 

Jesus' view of, 125, 255, 283, 
384. 

of prophets, 46. 

of John the Baptist, 320. 

of descendant of David, 83. 

of many when Jesus died, 
320. 

not necessarily on last day, 
320. 



Resurrection of Jesus, 

not predicted by him, 126. 
not prophesied in the Scrip- 
tures, 42, 45, 320 f. 
not historical, 320, 321, 392- 

398. 
not believed because of empty 

tomb, 393. 
not believed because of vis- 
ions, 397. 
believed because the Scrip- 
tures suggested, mythology 
allowed, and love demanded 
it, 320, 321, 397, 398. 
Revelation of John, 184. 
of Peter, 183. 
of Paul, 183. 
Revenants, 46, 83, 321. 
Ritschlian School, 4, 27. 
Rizzetto, Antonio, 137. 
Roman Catholic Church, 340 f. 
Royalist psalms, 43 f . 

Sabellians, 136. 

Sabbath, 54, 62, 95, 108, 109, 110, 

111, 133, 269, 270, 313. 
Sacraments, 53, 316. 
Sacred days, 61, 62. 
Sadducees, 182, 282, 283, 286, 

289. 
Samaritan in Tirathana, 87. 
Samaritan Messiah, 87. 
Samaritans called Sebastenes, 81. 
Saoshyas, 80, 93. 
Sarah 53, 57. 
Sattler, Michael, 137. 
Saturnalia, 62. 

Science and the Church, 346 ff. 
Scriptures, 

authority of, 6. 

known to Jesus, 252 f . 

criticised by Jesus, 272, 273, 
275, 278 f., 282, 300 f., 
302, 304 f., 314, 318. 
Servant of Yahwe, 48. 
Segga, Francesco, 137, 390. 



406 



INDEX 



Shedhbazzar, 47, 69. 

Shiloh, 37, 41. 

Sibylline oracles, 76 f., 80 f. 

Sige, 170. 

Simon, the high-priest, 77. 

Simon bar Kozeba, 82, 88, 116, 

217. 
Simon Magus, 81, 87, 211. 
Sinai, 62. 

ipal-usur, 47. 
Slavery, .; 

bet and hii School, 164 
Socialism, 32, 354. 

Society of Jesus. 
Sociuianisii . 
8on of David, 68. 
Son of God, 

in Trinity 

flgon i> f., in. 

by physical birth. 1 

by accession to throne. 

111. 
translation or res 

tion. 
known t 
alOM knows tl.- 

151 f. 
n<>t usr.l at Caeaarea, 1 
■I the trial. 1 

sense, ill. 
not ust'.l bv .Tos'.is i^f him- 

» If. l.-l. 
f Man. 
in T 

in Oani.l. LOO, 1!' 
in ].\ 111. 

in Jerome 's goapel, 113. 
in Canonical LSI ff. 

not humanity by incarnation, 

H. 

not equivalent to "this 

DUD 
not ideal humanity. M 
not lowly human r 



not Messianic title, 98. 

not used by Jesus in Greek, 
130 f. 

not created by Jesus in Ara- 
maic, 99. 

translation of bar nasha, 
' ff. 

used by Jesus only in generic 
sense, 104 ff. 

not used by Paul, 113. 

used in Revelation, 113. 

not created by the evangel- 
ists, 

Ip tro daeed through Greek 
version of 8ynoptic Apo- 
calypse, 103, 

misunderstood in Greek ren- 

fashione.l irr 105. 

fused with Daniel's angel, 

fused with Gnostic ideas, 

132 f. 
ma<le Jesus' self -designation, 

substituted for other ez- 
pnHioaQ HI f. 

variously rendered in Ara- 
maic versioi 130. 
8tar of B 
Stoicism. 160, 165 
Sun. lay. 02, 66. 

-pretatlon. 33T> 
Symbolum Sicacnur 

Synoptic Gospels, 217 ff., 230 ff., 

Tabernacles, feast of. 61. 214. 
uuz. 14. 

Talmud on Jesus, 1SM83. 
Taxon, possibly Jehudah ben 

on the kingdom of 



INDEX 



407 



295-300, 308 f ., 382. 
on the inner rectitude, 300 f. 
on overcoming evil with 

good, 281, 285, 301, 364. 
on the slaying of enemies, 

300 f. 
on the treatment of crimin- 
als, 301 f ., 365 ff. 
on oath-taking, 302 f., 368 f. 
on royalty and authority, 

303 f., 366 f ., 
on marriage and divorce, 304, 

369 ff. 
on celibacy, 304, 372. 
on private wealth, 305, 307, 

374-378. 
on sharing and lending, 305, 

307, 315 f., 37G. 
on the law of increase, 307. 
on the law of compensation, 

311. 
on the Perfect Being, 310- 

313, 383. 
on the divine method, 311. 
on the survival of the worth- 
iest, 312, 382. 
on ablutions, 275, 313, 379. 
on tabus, 275, 313. 
on Sabbath-keeping, 269, 313, 

379. 
on the sacrificial cult, 282, 

313, 378, 383. 
on public prayer, 313 f., 379. 
on public fasting, 269, 314 f. 
on public almsgiving, 315 f. 
on taxation for religious 

purposes, 279, 379. 
on asceticism, 269, 369. 
not meant for a millennium, 

305. 
not provisional, 307 f . 
not impracticable, 309 f . 
neglected in the Ecumenic 

creeds, 293 f. 
neglected by N. T. writers, 

294 f. 



helpful at the present time, 
355, 360 ff . 
Theodotion, 16. 
Theodotians, 136. 
Theologia Germanica, 18. 
Therapeutae, 323. 
Theudas, 87. 
Tiamat, 118. 
Tiridates, 246. 
Tiziano, 137. 
Travels of Peter, 185. 
Travels of Paul, 185. 
Travels of James, 185. 
Travels of John, 185. 
Two natures, 173. 
Two-source theory, 227 ff. 
Two Ways, the, 183. 
Tubingen School, 24, 26, 141, 

184 f., 196. 
Typology, 35 f ., 52-67. 

Unitarianism, 4, 22. 

Cf. Baptists 
Universalism, 22. 

Cf. Baptists 
Upanishads, 347. 
Urim and Thummim, 60. 

Vahu Mano, 45. 

Virgin birth, 38, 46 f., 135, 137, 

139, 249, 250, 251. 
Virgin Mary cult, 325. 

Waldenses, 136. 

War, 32, 330 ff ., 334, 350 ff ., 354, 

357, 358. 
We-source in Acts, 186, 226. 
Weeks, feast of, 54, 62. 
Williams, Roger, 22. 
Wisdom, book of, 81. 
" Wisdom of God," 14, 85, 86, 

184, 232. 
Wolfenbiittler Fragmente, 22. 
Woman 's emancipation, 353 f ., 

370, 374. 



408 



INDEX 



Yahwe's son, the king, 143. 
Yaldabaoth, 82. 



Zealots, 87. 

Zechariah, son of Barachiah, 86, 
185, 232. 



Zechariah *s ' ' Messianic ' ' proph< 

cies, 39, 50 f . 
Zerubbabel, 47, 50, 69 f. 
Zir Amiluti, 119. 
Zoe and Logos, 170. 
Zoroastrian influence, 387. 
Zwingli, estimate of, 326-328. 



TI. INDEX TO AUTHORS 



Aril, Anathon, 163. 17_\ 

Abbott, Eara, 14. 

Alfonl, Henry, 1 }. 

Anangaraa, L64L 

W.. 388. 

! . II.. 91. 
Apulcius, 17 f. 
Aristiil.s, 183. 
Arist.. of l'rll:!. 
Arnold. Qottfk "87. 

Arrian. 80, 1 7". 
At ha nasi 
Athenaeums, 171, 183. 

Basher, Wilhelm, 88. 

Bacon. Benjamin \\i 

Baeth^en. Friedrioh, 83. 

Bald Wilhi'lm, 29, 98, 

116. 
Baltanetedt, 

It, Karl Friedi 

Barnabas, 187. 
Bandissin, Wolf, 83. 

Bauer, Brmo, I U, 

Baur, Ferdinand Christian, 24, 
. 1<>1. 141, 11 

Beck. J. T. 

Boor. Qsef] 
Bonrath. Karl. | 
Bon/in^or, Inunanuol, 55. 
Berkeley, Qsot 
Bertholdt, Lodwig, 91, 107. 



i:.. 144. 
Bevan, Anthony Ashley, 106, 114. 
Beyschlag, Wilhelm. 
Beza, Theodor, 96. 
Blount, Charles, 21. 
Blumenbach, .1 

Bolingbroke, Henry St John. 
Bolton, Johann Adrian, 95 f. 
Bonfrere, Jacques, I 
Bostrom, Jakob. 
Bousset, Wilhelm, 13 f., 63, 81, 

88. 
Brust 

Brah 21. 

Bra: !m, 30, 60. 

260, 389, 
Breasted, James II.. 

. Karl Gottlieb. 

•^s, Charles Augustus, 27, 81. 
Bruce, James, 117. 
Bruckner, W., 100. 
Bruins, J. 

Bruno. 140. 

Budde, Karl, 48. 
Buflfon. Q. L. I- 
Bunsen, C. K. J., I - 1 

Calde 

Calvin. John. 
Cantu, Cesare, 1 

adt, Andreas 

Carpenter, J. Estlin, 100. 
Cary, O. I*, 99. 
Cased, Paul, 250. 



INDEX 



409 



Cassels, W. E., 27, 208. 

Castelli, E., 61. 

Cellarius, Martin, 137. 

Celsus, 12, 16, 90, 145, 179, 190, 

208. 
Charles, K. H., 30, 79, 81 f., 99, 

106, 116. 
Chateillon, Sebastian, 77, 328. 
Chemnitz, Martin, 189. 
Cheyne, Thomas Kelley, 27, 42, 

45, 47, 72, 243, 256, 257, 271. 
Chrysippus, 165. 
Cleanthes, 165. 
Clemen, Carl, 106, 120. 
Clement of Alexandria, 105, 171, 

205. 
Clement of Rome, 187, 188. 
Colani, T., 27. 
Collins, Anthony, 21. 
Comba, Emilio, 19, 137, 160, 207. 
Conybeare, C. F., 148, 323. 
Cone, Orello, 103. 
Copernicus, Nicolas, 21. 
Cureton, William, 189. 
Curione, Celio Secundo, 137. 
Cyprian, 259. 

Dallaeus, Johannes, 189. 
Dalman, Gustaf, 90, 106, 114 f., 

144 f. , 151, 250, 297, 309. 
Darwin, Charles, 25. 
Davidson, Samuel, 27. 
Deissmann, G. A., 144. 
Delff, Hugo, 388. 
Denck, Hans, 19, 137 f., 139 f., 

328 f., 391. 
Denifle, F. H. S., 327. 
De Wette, W. M. L., 24, 193, 196. 
Diderot, Denis, 23. 
Dieterich, A., 83, 246. 
Dillmann, August, v, 25, 53. 
Dio Cassius, 246. 
Dio Chrysostom, 175, 323. 
Diodorus Siculus, 55. 
Dionysius of Corinth, 187. 
Dippel, Conrad, 22, 335. 



Dodge, Ebenezer, v. 
Driver, Samuel R., 106, 122, 130 f. 
Drummond, James, 106, 120, 144. 
Duhm, Bernhard, 28, 42, 44, 50, 

76 f., 
Dulk, Albert, 32. 

Edelmann, August, 22, 140, 335. 
Eerdmans, B. D., 30, 104, 105. 
Eichhorn, Albert, 284. 
Eichhorn, J. G., 25, 193, 199, 247. 
Eliezer, Rabbi, 182. 
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 24, 347. 
Empedocles, 164. 
Epictetus, 175. 

Epiphanius, 82 f ., 160, 250, 260. 
Erasmus, Desiderius, 18, 138. 
Eusebius, 88, 181, 218, 257. 
Evanson, E., 193, 196, 207. 
Ewald, Heinrich, 25, 151. 

Fairbairn, Patrick, 53. 
Fen61on, Francois, 22. 
Fichte, Immanuel Hermann, 346. 
Fiebig, Paul, 106, 128. 
Flacius, Matthias, 189. 
Flemming, J., 116. 
Freytag, G. A., 212. 
Friedlander, M., 388. 
Fries, Samuel, 208, 211. 
Fritzsche, K. F. A., 96. 

Galilei, Galileo, 21. 
Geiger, Abraham, 48, 80. 
GenSbrard, Gilbert, 95.. 
George, J. F. L., 24. 
George, the Sinner, 210. 
Gerlach, E., 181. 
Gfrorer, A. F., 163. 
Gibbon, Edward, 323. 
Gieseler, J. K. L., 180. 
Ginzel, Friedrich Karl, 292. 
Ginzberg, Louis, 83. 
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 23. 
Graf, Karl Heinrich, 26.. 
Gramberg, C. P. W., 24. 



410 



INDEX 



Grill, Julius, 50, 163, 169, 208, 

389. 
Grossmann, C. G. L., 168. 
Grotius, Hugo, 95, 138, 193. 
Gunkel, Hermann, 63, 106, 118, 

184. 
Guyon, Jeanne Marie, 22. 

Hackmann, H., 47. 

Haeekel, Ernst, 25. 

Hadrian, 178. 

Halevy, Joseph, 242. 

Harnack, Adolph, 13, 105, 113, 

175, 184, 193, 206 f., 208, 

212, 250, 388, 394. 
Harper, Eobert Francis, 370. 
Harris, J. Rendel, 250. 
Hartmann, Eduard, 347. 
Hase, Karl, 26. 
Hasenclever, A. H. F., 176. 
Hausrath, Karl, 87, 99. 
Havernick, K. F., 25. 
Heath, Richard, 19. 
Heberle, K., 137. 
Hegel, G. W. F., 24, 336, 346. 
Hegesippus, 183, 188. 
Hengstenberg, E. W., 25, 53. 
Henke, C. F., 25. 
Heinrici, G., 387. 
Heinze, J. M., 163. 
Heracleon, 208. 
Heraclitus, 160, 163, 164. 
Herbert of Cherbury, 140. 
Herder, J. G., 23, 96. 
Herrmann, Wilhelm, 27. 
Hennas, 183, 184. 
Herodotus, 55. 
Heuzey, Leon, 55. 
Hilgenfeld, Adolph, 26, 77, 98, 

106, 113, 127, 196, 207, 241, 

387. 
Hilgenfeld, Rudolph, 241. 
Hillmann, J., 148, 250. 
Hippolytus, 171, 388. 
Hitzig, Ferdinand, 100. 
Hoekstra, S., 100. 



Hofmann, J. C. K., 25, 100. 
Hollmann, G., 196. 
Holsten, Karl, 98, 195, 196. 
Holtzmann, H. J., 13, 97, 101 f ., 

123, 196, 207, 258. 
Holtzmann, Oskar, 13, 259. 
Hommel, Fritz, 57, 119. 
Honig, W., 388. 
Horst, G. C, 207, 336. 
Hort, F. J. A., 13, 14. 
Houbigant, Charles Francois, 21, 

138. 
Hubmaier, Balthasar, 19, 328. 
Hulsius, Anton, 52. 
Hume, David, 21. 
Huxley, Thomas, 25. 
Huyghens, Christian, 21. 

Ibn Ezra, Abraham, 18, 100. 
Ibn Hisham, 71. 
Ignatius, 170, 187-191. 
Ilgen, D. F., 140. 
Irenaeus, 171, 208, 242. 

Jacobsen, August, 102. 
Jansen, Cornelius, 333. 
Jehudah, Rabbi, 181. 
Jensen, Peter, 56, 82. 
Jeremias, Alfred, 119. 
Jerome, 113, 175, 205, 259. 
Joel, Marcus, 182, 197. 
Joris, David, 138. 
Jose bar Zabda, 181. 
Josephus, 31, 86 f., 179 f., 181, 

241, 252, 258, 303 f., 318. 
Jiilicher, A., 123, 124, 152. 
Julius Africanus, 88. 
Justin Martyr, 90, 171, 183, 290. 
Justus of Tiberius, 181. 
Juvenal, 175. 

Kalthoff, A., 197. 

Kant, Immanuel, 23, 336. 347. 

Keil, C. F., 25. 

Keim, Theodor, 26, 137, 1S1. - 

Keller, Ludwig, 19. 



INDEX 



411 



Kepler, Johann, 244, 245. 
Kirkegaard, Soren, 27. 
Kittel, Rudolph, 68. 
Klopper, A., 106, 120, 151. 
Koch, A. (Opsopaeus), 77. 
Kohler, Kaufmann, 155. 
Kreyenbiihl, Johannes, 208, 211, 

388. 
Krop, E. J., 106, 117. 
Kuenen, Abraham, 26, 28, 74. 
Kuinoel, C. T., 96. 

Lagarde, Paul de, 30, 103, 104. 
Lamarck, J. B. P. A., 25. 
Lawrence, Richard, 117. 
Leclerc, Jean, 22. 
Lessing, G. E., 22 f. 
Levy, Jacob, 91. 
Lewald, J. K. A., 387. 
Lietzmann, Hans, 30, 105, 114, 

116. 
Lightfoot, G. B., 194. 
Lindgren, H. G., 27. 
Lipsius, Richard A., 83, 105, 387. 
Locke, John, 22, 140. 
Loman, A. D., 181, 185, 197. 
Lubieniecky, Stanislas, 390. 
Lucian of Samosata, 179, 190. 
Lucius, P., 255. 
Ludolph, Senior, 136. 
Luther, Martin, 18, 326, 327. 
Lyra, Nicolas de, 94. 

Madden, F. W., 88. 
Malalas, Johannes 190. 
Manchot, C. H., 175. 
Manelfi, 136, 137. 
Marcion, 15, 112, 193. 
Marcus Aurelius, 178, 190. 
Marquart, J., 77, 246. 
Marti, Karl, 47, 77, 106, 110. 
Massebieau, L., 323. 
Massuet, Rene, 387. 
Matthes, J. C, 33, 74, 197. 
Mayerhoff, L., 194, 197. 
Mead, G. R. S., 387. 



Megethius, 105. 

Menzies, Allan, 131. 

Merx, Adalbert, 91, 147, 150, 248, 

306. 
Meyboom, H U., 197. 
Meyer, Arnold, 30, 105, 106. 
Meyer, Eduard, 70. 
Michaelis, Johann David, 23. 
Minucius Felix, 190. 
Moore, George Foote, 61. 
Morin, Jean, 20. 
Mosheim, Johann Lorenz, 387. 
Miiller, Herrmann, 24. 
Minister, Sebastian, 138. 
Muss-Arnolt, W., 60. 
Myrberg, O. F., 27. 

Neander, August, 25, 96. 
Nestle, Eberhard, 14. 
Newman, A. H., 19. 
Newton, Isaac, 21. 
Nicole, Pierre, 333. 
Niese, Benedict, 181, 258. 
Noldeke, Theodor, 26, 106. 
Nosgen, C. F., 99. 
Noyes, George R., 24. 

Oefele, Felix, 244. 
Ohle, R., 255. 
Olshausen, Justus, 42. 
Oort, H. L., 103. 
Origen, 82, 145, 171. 
Overbeck, Franz Camillo, 178. 

Paine, Thomas, 23. 
Palfrey, John G., 24. 
Papias, 183. 
Parker, Theodore, 24. 
Parmenides, 163. 
Pascal, Blaise, 333. 
Paulus, H. E. G., 23, 96. 
Peiser, F. E., 50. 
Penn, William, 22. 
Pereira, Bento, 20. 
Peritz, Ismar, 370. 
Pfleiderer, Erich, 164. 



412 



INDEX 



Pfleiderer, Otto, 26, 106, 184 f., 
196, 202, 208, 246, 323. 

Philo, 31, 55, 81, 146, 160, 162, 
164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 
179, 249, 304, 323. 

Philaster, 160. 

Photius, 181. 

Pierson, Allard, 74, 197. 

Piscator, Johannes, 21, 138. 

Plato, 160, 164, 165. 

Pliny the Younger, 175, 192, 195. 

Ploss, H. H., 55. 

Polycarp, 189, 191, 194. 

Polycrates, 210. 

Porphyry, 12, 16. 

Porter, Frank C., 47. 

Preuschen, Erwin, 80. 

Ptolemy, 15. 

Quadratus, 183. 

Eab Abina, 181. 
Eab Jose, 181. 
Eamsay, William M., 241. 
Eeimarus, Hermann Samuel, 22. 
Eeinach, Solomon, 181. 
Eenan, Ernest, 29. 
Eenato, Camillo, 137. 
Seville, Albert, 30, 207. 
Eeville, Jean, 163, 169, 208. 
Ehees, Eush, 105, 115. 
Eitschl, Albrecht, 27, 102. 
Eoehrich, G. G., 139. 
Eousseau, Jean Jacques, 23. 
Eydberg, Viktor, v, 27, 101. 

Sand, Christoph, 390. 
Sanday, William, 130 f ., 263. 
Sealiger, Joseph, 189. 
Schaff, Philip, 14. 
Schechter, Solomon, 90. 
Schelling, F. W. J., 346, 347. 
Schenkel, Daniel, 14. 
Schleiermacher, F. E. D., 24, 96, 

193. 
Schmidt, Carl, 387. 



Schmidt, J. G. C, 193, 196. 
Schmiedel, Paul, 106, 109 f., 

112 f ., 177, 208, 393, 396. 
Schmoller, Otto, 32. 
Schueckenburger, Matthias, 60 
Schnedermann, G. H., 99. 
Scholten, J. H., 26, 207. 
Scholten, W., 98. 
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 347. 
Schulz, David, 13. 
Schiirer, Emil, 164, 181, 241, 258. 
Schuster, Paul, 164. 
Schurmann, Anna Maria van, 22. 
Schwegler, Albert, 25, 193, 207. 
Schweizer, Alexander, 212. 
Scrivener, F. H. J., 14. 
Sellin, Ernst, 47. 
Semler, Johann Salomo, 13, 23, 

175, 193, 199, 387. 
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, 174. 

198 f., 328. 
Serapion of Antioeh, 206. 
Servetus, Michael, 20, 137 f., 

139 f ., 328, 330, 391. 
Siegfried, Karl, 163, 167. 
Simon, Eichard, 21. 
Smith, Adam, 323. 
Smith, W. B., 197. 
Smith, William Eobertson, 27, 

29, 71. 
Soderblom, Nathan, 80, 317. 
Soulier, A., 163, 168. 
Sozzini, Lelio, 137, 390, 391. 
Sozzini, Fausto, 140. 
Spallanzani, Lazaro, 25. 
Spencer, Herbert, 25. 
Spener, Jakob, 22. 
Spinoza, Baruch, 22, 335. 
Spitta, Friedrich, 208. 
Stade, Bernhard, 28, 47, 59, 76. 
Staerk, Willy, 106. 
Stave, Erik, 45. 
Steindorff, Georg, 55. 
Steck, Eudolph, 176, 185, 194, 

196, 197. 
Stevens, George B., 106, 120. 



INDEX 



413 



Storr, G. C, 101. 

Straatman, J. W., 199, 395 f . 

Strabo, 55. 

Strauss, David Friedrich, 24, 85, 

98, 207, 387. 
Suetonius, 177, 178. 

Tacitus, 176, 177, 178. 

Tatian, 171, 183, 208. 

Tauler, Johann, 18. 

Tertullian, 105, 171, 241. 

Trajan, 176. 

Tregelles, S. P., 13. 

Thales, 163. 

Thayer, Joseph Henry, 150. 

Theodotion, 16. 

Theophilus of Antioch, 171, 208. 

Thoma, A., 208. 

Thomas a Kempis, 18. 

Tiele, C. P., 45. 

Tischendorf, A. F. C, 14. 

Toland, John, 21, 140. 

Tolstoi, Leo, 317. 

Torrey, C. C, 73. 

Toy, C. H., 27. 

Treschel, Friedrich, 390. 

Turner, C. H., 241. 

Uloth, C. E. B., 104. 
Usener, Hermann, 56, 246, 249. 
Usteri, J. M., 99. 
Usteri, L., 193. 

Valdez, Juan, 138. 

Valentinus, 15, 29, 170, 208, 211, 

389. 
Van Loon, F., 197. 
Van Manen, W. C, 103, 106, 113, 

175, 185, 186, 195, 196, 197, 

199, 200, 208. 
Vatablus, F., 138. 
Vatke, Wilhelm, 24. 
Vermigli, Pietro, 138. 
Vernes, Maurice, 77, 



Vischer, Eberhard, 184. 

Volter, Daniel, 250. 

Volkmar, Gustav, 30, 102 f., 181, 

191, 257. 
Vollborth, J. C, 387. 
Voltaire, F. M. A., 23. 
Volz, Paul, 47. 

Weinel, Heinrich, 71. 

Weiss, Bernhard, 13, 98. 

Weiss, Johannes, 32, 104. 

Weisse, C. H„ 26, 96 f ., 101, 212. 

Weizsacker, Carl, 26, 99, 208. 

Wellhausen, Julius, 28, 44, 50, 72, 
82, 104 f ., 106, 108, 112, 114, 
150, 184 f., 243, 317. 

Wendland, P., 323. 

Wendt, Heinrich, 98, 212. 

Wernle, Paul, 123. 

Westcott, B. F., 13. 

Westerburg, E., 175. 

Whiston, William, 140. 

White, Andrew D., 34. 

Whiton, James M., x. 

Wieseler, K. G., 180. 

Wikner, Pontus, 27. 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Ulrich, 
64. 

Wilke, C. G., 101. 

Williams, Eowland, 27. 

Willrich, Hugo, 50. 

Winckler, Hugo, 57, 65. 

Wiszowazzi, Andreas, 390. 

Wittichen, Carl, 99. 

Wolf, Christian, 23. 

Woolston, Thomas, 21. 

Wrede, Wilhelm, 30, 103, 149, 196. 

Xenophanes, 163. 

Zeller, Eduard, 25, 255. 
Zeno, 165. 

Zinzendorf, Nicholas, 22, 23. 
Zwingli, Ulrich, 18, 



414 



INDEX 



HI. INDEX OF TEXTS 



Genesis 

i, 2 63 

iii, 15 36,39 

iv, 3 58 

vi, Iff 78, 142 f. 

vii, Iff 53 

ix, 25-27 37, 39 f. 

xiv, Iff 57 

xv, 17 54, 63 

xvii, Iff 53 

xvii, 3 37, 40, 41 

xxii, Iff 54 

xxviii, Iff 54 

xxxv, 14 71 

xxxviii, 13 .71 

xlix, 10 37, 41, 80 

Exodus 

iii, 2, 55, 63 

iv, 22 154 

vii, 16 62 

x, 25 ff 62 

xi, 1-8 62 

xii, Iff 53 

xiv, 21 ff 53 

xvi, Iff 53 

xvii, Iff 53 

xxv, 9 65 

Leviticus 

xix, 12, 302 

xx, 10 373 

xxiv, 18 301 

xxiv, 20 301 

Numbers 

xxiv, 17 37, 41, 80, 88, 246 

Deuteronomy 

i, 31 154 

viii, 5 154 

xiv, 1 154 

xviii, 15 37, 41 

xxii, 22 ff 373 

xxiii, 19, 20 305 

xxxii, 6 154 

xxxii, 8 143 



Judges 

viii, 27 .61 

I Samuel 

ii, 25 95 

x, 2 49 

x, 9 143 

xiv, 10 71 

xvi, 13 71 

II Samuel 

vii, 2ff 44, 69, 72 

xiv, 17 43 

xiv, 20 43 

II Kings 
xix, 15 71 

Isaiah 

i, 2 154 

ii, Iff 38 

vii, 14 38, 46, 249 

viii, 23 38, 92 

ix, Iff 243 

ix, 5ff ...38, 43, 47, 70, 74, 80 

ix, 6 144 

xi, Iff 38, 70, 74 

xix, 16-25 76 

xxiv-xxvii 77 

xxx, 1 154 

xiv, 3 140 

xlix-lv 74 

xlix, 16 65 

lii, 13-liii, 12 38, 48 

liii, 7 56, 92 

liii, 9 398 

lix, 20 38, 48 

lx, Iff 246 

lxi, Iff 38, 48 

lxiv, 8 154 

Jeremiah 

iii, 4 154 

iii, 19 154 

ix, 25 55 

xxiii, 5, 6 38, 48 

xxx, 8 74 

d, 9 154 

i, 15 38, 49 



INDEX 



415 



xxxi, 22 38, 49, 38 

xxxi, 31 38, 49 

EZEKIEL 

xi, 10 38, 49 

xvii, 22 38, 74 

xxi, 32 38, 49 

xxxiii, 15 38, 49 

xxxiv, 23, 24 38 

xxxvii, 24 ff 38 

xl, Iff 55, 63 

HOSEA 

ii, 1 154 

vi, 2 38, 45, 321 

xi, 1 38, 45, 247 

Joel 

iii, 1 38, 45 f. 

Amos 

ix, 11 ff 46, 74 

Obadiah 

vs. 18 38, 46 

Jonah 

i, 11 ff 38, 46 

ii, 1 321 

Micah 

iv-vii 46 

v, 1 246 

v, 1, 2 38 

v, 2 46 

Haggai 

ii, 7 39, 50 

ii, 23 74 

Zechariah 

i, 6 74 

iii, 7 71 

iii, 8 39, 50 

iv, 6ff 74 

iv, 14 71 

vi, 12 39 

ix, 9 39, 50, 138 

xi, 12 39 

xii, 10 91 

xiii, 7 39, 50 

Malachi 

iii, 1 39, 51,61,63 



Psalms 

ii, Iff 37, 43, 44, 72 

viii, Iff 37, 42 

xvi, Iff 37, 42 

xvi, 8-11 320 

xviii, Iff 43 

xx, 1 ff 43 

xxi, Iff 37, 43 

xxii, Iff 37, 42 

xxiv, Iff 37, 42 

xl, Iff 37, 42, 43 

xli, 10 37, 43 

xlv, Iff 37, 43, 44, 72 

1, Iff 255 

Mi, 2 43 

lxi, Iff. 43 

lxiii, Iff 43 

lxv, Iff 255 

lxviii, 19 37, 43 

lxxii, Iff 37, 44, 45, 72 

lxxiii, 15 154 

lxxxii, Iff 43 

lxxxiv, Iff 43 

lxxxix, Iff 43, 44 

ex, Iff 37,43, 44, 77,80 

cxviii, 22 37, 43 

exxxii, Iff 43 

Proverbs 

viii, 22 ff 38, 45 

Job 

xix, 25, 26 37, 41, 42 

Canticles 

i, Iff 38, 45 

Ecclesiastes 
i, Iff. 81 

Esther 

vi, 14 155 

Daniel 

iii, 25 119 

vii, 13. .38, 50, 85, 97, 100, 115, 

118, 119, 128, 132 

viii, 15 119 

ix, 21 119 

ix, 24-27 38, 50 

x, 5 , 119, 138 



416 



INDEX 



x, 16 119 

xii, 6, 7 119, 138 

Nehemiah 

vi, 7 72 

I Maccabees 

xiv, 41 44 

xiv, 46 77 

II Maccabees 

ii, 5ff 87 

III Maccabees 

vi, 28 155 

Ecclesiasticus 

iv, 11 154 

xxiii, Iff 154 

xlvii, 11 68 

xlviii, 10 75 

li, Iff 152 

li, 12 (Hebrew addition),. ..90 

Wisdom of Solomon 

ii, 18 154 

v, 5 147 

xviii, 13 155 

Judith 

ix, 4 155 

Enoch (Ethiopic) 

i-xxxvi 78 

xxxvii-lxxi. .30, 84, 85, 86, 92, 

125, 132, 192 

xxxvii, Iff 85 

xxxviii, Iff 85 

xxxix, 1, 2a 85 

xxxix, 3-13 85 

xl, 1 ff 85 

xli, 1, 2 85 

xli, 3-8 .85 

xlii, Iff 85 

xliii, Iff 85 

xliv, Iff 85 

xiv, 3, 4 85 

xlvi, Iff 85, 117 

xlvi, 2, 3, 4 101 

xlvi, 3 85, 119 

xlvi, 2, 5, 6 85 

xlvii. Iff .....85 



xlviii, Iff .85 

xlviii, 2 101 

xlviii, 8-10 .85 

1, Iff 85 

li, Iff 85 

liii, 1-5 85 

liii, 6 85 

liv, 1-6, 7 85 

lv, 2, 3, 4 85 

lvi, Iff 85 

lvii, Iff 85 

lviii, Iff 85 

lx, Iff 85 

lxi, 8, 9 .85 

lxii, Iff 85 

lxii, 7, 9, 14. 101 

lxiii, Iff. ' 85 

lxiii, 11 ....101 

lxv, 1-lxix, 25 85 

lxix, 26 f., 29 101 

lxix, 26 ff 85 

lxx, Iff 85 

lxxi, Iff 85 

Ixxi, Iff 101 

lxxxvii-xc 78 

lxxxvii, 2 .119 

lxxxix, 52 78 

xc, 38 79 

xci, 12-19 79 

xei-civ 79 

xciii, 3 ff 79 

cv, 2 144 

Enoch (Slavonic) 
lix, 2 81 

Apocalypse of Baruch 

vi, Iff 87 

xxix, 3 83 

xxx, 1 83 

xxxix, 7 83 

xl, 3 83 

lxxii, 2-6 83 

Apocalypse of Ezra 

v, 56 84 

vi, 6 84 

vi, 58 155 

vii, 28 ff 83, 144 



INDEX 



417 



ix, 43 ff 84 

x, 44 ff 84 

xii, 31 ff 84 

xii, 32, 37, 52 144 

xiii, Iff 84, 101, 117 

xiv, 9 145 

Jubilees 

xxxi, 18 82 

Testaments op the Twelve 
Patriarchs 

Dan. vi, Iff 82 

Assumption op Moses 

i, 6 82 

ix, Iff 82 

x, 27 155 

Psalter op Solomon 

vii, 30 155 

xvii, 4 89 

xvii, 5 89 

xvii, 21 89 

xvii, 36 68 

Sibylline Oracles 

III, 46-62 80 

111,47, 48 81 

III, 75-92 80 

111,286 77 

III, 652-660 76, 77 

III, 702 155 

Matthew 

i, Iff 69, 89 

i, 1-17 247 

i, 6, 317 

i, 16 248 

i, 18-ii, 23 249 

ii, Iff 243 

ii, 6 246 

«, 247 

ii, 23 243 

iii, 17 146 

iv, Iff 148 

iv, 3-6 146 

iv, 1-H 262 

iv, 1-17 298 

v, 9 146, 155 

v, 11 123 

v, 27-30 372 



v, 32 304 

v, 45 155, 268 

v, 48 313 

vi, 1-4 316 

vi, 5 311 

vi, 5-8 314 

vi, 9ff 153 

vi, 14 317 

vi, 16-18 314 

vi, 22 ff 301 

vi, 33 299 

vi, 42 305 

vii, 11 155, 313 

vii, 17 ff 300 

viii, 5ff 267 

viii, 20 105, 111, 121, 124 

ix, 6 95, 121, 125, 268 

ix, 9-13 268 

ix, 14-17 269 

ix, 16 f 314 

x, 23 96, 121, 122 

x, 32 123 

xi, Iff 270 

xi, 2ff 261, 266 

xi, 7ff 267 

xi, 9 105 

xi, 19 121, 124, 269 

xi, 25 ff 151 

xi, 27 146 

xii, Iff 270 

xii, 8 94, 121, 125 

xii, 27 264 

xii, 28 265 

xii, 32. . .95, 105, 112, 121, 124 

xii, 40 121, 124, 321 

xii, 46 321 

xiii, Iff 308 

xiii, 31 f 308 

xiii, 33 308 

xiii, 37-41 121 f. 

xiii, 47 ff 308 

xiv, 2 266, 320 

xiv, 3 258 

xiv, 33 146 

xvi, 13 94 

xvi, 13, 14. . . .46, 112, 113, 320 



418 



INDEX 



xvi, 13-20 121 f. 

xvi, 16 146, 148 

xvi, 27 121, 125 

xvi, 28 121 f. 

xvii, Iff 148 

xvii, 5 146 

xvii, 9 121 

xvii, 10-13 124 

xvii, 12 121, 125 

xvii, 22 121, 125 

xviii, 11 123 

xviii, 18 107 

xix, 9 304 

xix, 10-12 372 

xix, 11 f 304 

xix, 18 ff 317 

xix, 28 f 121, 123 

xx, 1-16 311 

xx, 18 121, 125 

xx, 28 121, 124 

xxi, 12 ff 306 

xxi, 33-46 152, 312 

xxii, 1-14 152 

xxii, 41-46 89 

xxiii, 8ff. 155 

xxiii, 37 ff 86 

xxiv, 4-36 86, 102, 184 

xxiv, 24 f 88 

xxiv, 27 121, 124 

xxiv, 30 121, 123, 124 

xxiv, 36 146, 147 

xxiv, 37 121, 124 

xxiv, 39 121, 124 

xxiv, 44 121, 124 

xxv, 14 ff 307 

xxv, 31 ff 86, 121, 123 

xxvi, 2 121, 123 

xxvi, 24 121, 124, 125 

xxvi, 45 121, 124 

xxvi, 50 123 

xxvi, 52 306 

xxvi, 63 146 

xxvi, 64 121, 125 

xxvii, 7 147 

xxvii, 9 124 

xxvii, 30 125 



xxvii, 40 146 

xxvii, 52 f 320 

xxvii, 54 146 

xxviii, 1 321 

xxviii, 1-8 394 

xxviii, 1-20 394 f. 

xxviii, 4 395 

xxviii, 7 393 

xxviii, 16 392 

xxviii, 16-20 392 

xxviii, 19 146 

Mark 

i, 1 146 f. 

i, 11 146 

ii, 10 105, 107, 121, 125 

ii, 13-17 268 

ii, 23 ff 108, 270 

ii, 26 270 

ii, 28 95, 105, 121, 125 

iii, 11 146, 148 

iii, 13 ff 270 

iv, 26-29 309 

v, 7 146, 148 

vi, 3 ff 251 

vi, 14-16 320 

vi, 15 320 

vi, 17 258 

viii, 28 320 

viii, 31 121, 124 

viii, 38 121, 125, 128 

ix, 1 122 

ix, 7 146 

ix, 8 124 

ix, 9 121 

ix, 11-13 118, 124 

ix, 12 121 

ix, 31 121, 125 

x, 11, 12 304 

x, 23 125 

x, 29 123 

x, 33 121 

x, 45 121, 124 

xii, Iff 312 

xii, 26 f 118 

xii, 35-37 89 

xiii, 5-32 86, 102, 184 



INDEX 



419 



xiii, 26 106, 121, 125 

xiii, 32 147 

xiv, If 123 

xiv, 21 118, 121, 124, 125 

xiv, 41 121, 124 

xiv, 61 146 

xiv, 62 121, 125 

xv, 39 146, 150 

xvi, 1-8 394 

xvi, 9-20 392, 394 

Luke 

i, 5 241 

i, 5-25 250 

i, 32 ff 146, 148 

i, 34, 35 146, 250 

i, 41 250 

i, 46-55 250 

i, 57-80 250 

ii, 2 241 

ii, 8ff 247 

ii, 39 247 

ii, 41-51 251 

iii, 1 241, 256 

iii, 19 f 258 

iii, 22 146, 148 

iii, 23 250 

iii, 23 ff 69 

iii, 28-38 .., 247 

iii, 38 146, 147 

iv, 1-13 262 

iv, 3 146 

iv, 9 146 

iv, 16-30 263 

iv, 25-27 312 

v, 24 121, 125 

v, 27-32 268 

vi, 5 121, 125 

vi, 22 121, 123 

vi, 43 ff 300 

vii, 1-10 267 

vii, 13 ff 270 

vii, 34 121, 124, 128 

viii, 2 269 

viii, 3, 271 

viii, 28 146, 148 f. 

ix, 2 121 



ix, 7-9 320 

ix, 8 320 

ix, 19 320 

ix, 22 124 

ix, 26 121, 125, 128 

ix, 27 122 

ix, 35 146 

ix, 44 121, 125 

ix, 58 121, 124 

x, 21 ff 147, 151 

x, 29-37 312 

xi, 2ff 153 

xi, 30 121, 124 

xi, 40 85 

xi, 49 184 

xii, 8 121, 123 

xii, 10 121, 124 

xii, 11 f 122 

xii, 31 299 

xii, 40 121 

xii, 46 124 

xii, 70 146 

xiii, 4 268 

xiii, 32 266 

xiv, 15-24 152 

xv, 3-7 311 

xv, 8-10 311 

xv, 11 ff 311 

xvi, 1 ff .307 

xvii, 10 311 

xvii, 20 ff .123, 309 

xvii, 22 121 

xvii, 24 121, 124 

xvii, 26 121, 124 

xvii, 30 121, 124 

xviii, 8 121, 124 

xviii, 9-14 313 

xviii, 16 266 

xviii, 29 123 

xviii, 31 121, 125 

xix, 10 121, 123 

xix, 11 ff 307 

xx, 9ff 312 

xx, 27-40 312, 372 

xx, 36 145, 156 

xx, 41-44 89 



420 



INDEX 



xxi, 8-36 86, 102, 184 

xxi, 27 121, 125 

xxi, 34-36 121, 123 

xxii, If 123 

xxii, 18 298 

xxii, 22 121, 125 

xxii, 24 ff 303 

xxii, 27-30 .124 

xxii, 28 262 

xxii, 36 306 

xxii, 48 121, 123, 128 

xxii, 69 121, 125 

xxii, 70 146 

xxiii, 47 150 

xxiv, Iff 392 

xxiv, 6 393 

xxiv, 7 121 

xxiv, 16 320 

xxvii, 7 123 

John 

i, 1 159 

i, 14 159 

i, 18 13, 14, 157 

i, 34 157 

i, 50 157 

i,51 121 

ii, 1 321 

ii, 20 242 

iii, 13 121 

iii, 14 121 

iii, 16, 17, 18 157 

iii, 35, 36 157 

iv, 5ff 87 

iv, 23 379 

v, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26.... 157 

v, 27 .121 

vi, 40 157 

vi, 53 53,56,121 

vi, 62 121 

vi, 63 56 

vi, 69 157 

vii, 52-viii, 11 206 

viii, 28 121 

viii, 35 f 157 

viii, 57 157 

ix, 35 121 



x, 33 ff 158 

x, 36 157 

xi,4, 37 157 

xii, 23, 34 121 

xiii, 31 121, 128 

xiv, 13 157 

xvi, 1 157 

xvii, 11 157 

xix, 7 320 

xx, Iff. 392 

xx, 9 320 

xx, 29 158 

xx, 31 157 

xxi, Iff 392, 393, 395 

Acts 

ii, 25 ff .* 320 

v, 36 87 

vii, 56 113 

xiii, 34 ff 320 

xvii, 1 196 

xviii, If 178 

KOMANS 

i, Iff 196-204 

ix, 11 53, 54 

I Corinthians 

i, Iff. 196-204 

x, 1-4 53, 56 

xv, 3-8 395, 397 

xv, 4 320, 321 

xv, 5-11 200 

xv, 20 320 

xv, 45-49 53 

xv, 49 65 

II Corinthians 

i, Iff 196 ff. 

i, 8 380 

Galatians 

i, Iff 196 ff. 

iii, 19 54 

iv, 26 ff 62 

I Thessalonians 

i, Iff 196 

II Thessalonians 

i, Iff ....196 

i, 8 380 



INDEX 



421 



Ephesians 

i, Iff ..193 f., 200 f 

i, 15-17 194 

COLOSSIANS 

i, 1 ff 194 

i, 4 194 

Philemon 

vs. Iff 194 

vss. 4-6 194 

Philippians 

i, 1 195 

iv, 3 195 

Titus 

i, Iff 193 

I Timothy 

i, Iff 193 

II Timothy 

i, Iff 193 

Hebrews 

i, Iff 193 

viii, Iff 53 

ix, 13, 14 54 

ix, 23, 24 65 

ix, 24 54 

xi, 10 53 

xii, 24 54 

I Peter 

i, Iff 192 

iii, 17 53 

II Peter 

i. Iff 193 

ii, 11 11 

I John 

i, Iff 192 

II John 

i, Iff 192 

III John 

i, Iff 192 

James 

i, Iff 192 

JUDE 

i, Iff 191 

Eevelation 

i, Iff 184 

i, 13 113, 119 



xi, 1, 2 82 

xi-xiii 184 

xii, Iff 82, 84 

xiv, 14 113, 119 

xvii-xviii 184 

xviii, 16 258 

xix, 13 169 

xxi, 10 65 

Gospel op Peter 

Iff 206, 207 

58 ff 392, 394, 395 

Gospel of Hebrews 

Iff 205, 206, 259, 261 

Gospel of Ebionites 

Iff 206, 260 

Gospel of Egyptians 

Iff 206 

Gospel of Nicodemus 
Iff 207 

Protevangelium Jacobi 
Iff 207 

Logia Jesu 

Iff 170, 206 

Predicatio Pauli 

Iff 259, 260 

Didache 

Iff. 183, 194, 397 

Barnabas 

Iff 187 

Hermas 

Iff 183, 184 

Clement 

I Epistle 187, 188 

II Epistle 188 

Homilies 187 

Recognitions .v ... .187 

Ignatius 

Eomans, etc 188-191 

POLYCARP 

Philippians 191 

Targums 

To Exodus xl, 11 91 

I Samuel xxiv, 7 149 

II Samuel vii, 14 145 

Zech. iv, 7 92 



422 



INDEX 



Psalm ii, 7 145 

Psalm xviii, 7 149 

-Canticles iv, 5 91 

MlSHNA 

Jadiam iv, 6 182 

Shabbath i, 3 252 

Shemoneh Eseeh 

14, 15, 17 90 

Bereshith Rabba 

100 321 

Koheleth Rabba 

To i, 8 .182 

Tosephta 

Chullin ii, 24 182 



Palestinian Talmud 

Shabbath 14 247 

Babylonian Talmud 

Aboda Zara 16 b 182, 252 

Aboda Zara 17 a. .182, 243, 252 

Bekoroth 8 a 182 

Chullin 27 b 182 

Megilla 70 a 246 

Menachoth 65 b 182 

Sanhedrin 98 b 83 

Sanhedrin 107 b 247 

Shabbath 104 b 247 

Shabbath 116 a 182 

Sota 47 a 247 

Sukka 52 a 91 

Taanith 68 d 88 






THE GOSPEL FOR AN AGE OF DOUBT 

By HENRY VAN DYKE, D.D., LL.D. 

Cloth, l2mo., $1.25 

" Dr. van Dyke's ' Gospel for an Age of Doubt,' which is often called the 
finest apologetic of modern times, is constantly coming out in new editions. 
It is a book that ought to be in the hands — and heart — of every thoughtful 
Christian of the day."— The Interior, Chicago. 

" Dr. van Dyke's lectures form one of the most eloquent defences of Chris- 
tianity that we have yet met with."— The Academy, London. 

'* The most vital, suggestive, helpful book we know in the whole range of 
theological writing at this period."— The New York Times. 



THE GOSPEL FOR A WORLD OF SIN 

By HENRY VAN DYKE, D.D., LL.D. 

Cloth, 12mo., $1.25 

" His former volume, ' The Gospel for an Age of Doubt,' was but a prepa- 
ration for the discussion of this larger and more profoundly interesting sub- 
ject. . . . Just the book we need."— Dr. S. B. Rossiter, N. Y. Observer. 

"A book for the times."— Christian Intelligencer. 

"Sure to prove of immense value in leading the thought of the day."— Con- 
gregationalism 

" The work is one to charm and satisfy."— Plain Dealer, Cleveland. 

" One of the basic books of true Christian thought of to-day and of all 
times."— Boston Courier. 



THE QUEST OF HAPPINESS 

A Study of Victory Over Life's Troubles 

By NEWELL DWIGHT HILLIS 

Pastor of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn; Author of "The Influence 
of Christ in Modern Life," etc. 

Cloth, with colored page borders, $1.50 net 

•"The Quest of Happiness' is Dr. Hillis's very best book. It is stroug, 
vivid, clear, and has a certain indefinable human quality which will be sure to 
give it a large circulation and make it a source of great helpfulness. I especi- 
ally enjoyed the ' Forewords.' They would make an attractive volume in 
themselves."— Amory H. Bradford, Pastor First Congregational Church, 
Monte lair, N. J. 

" Like everything from Dr. Hillis, ' The Quest of Happiness ' is original 
in conception and eloquent in expression. It is a book sure of a wide and 
helpful influence. I can scarcely think of any better service that could be 
rendered the crowds out in search of happiness than to acquaint them with 
this guide-book to the Land they are looking for."— Charles Wood, Second 
Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia. 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York 




FROM EPICURUS TO CHRIST 

A Study in the Principles of Personality 
By WILLIAM DE WITT HYDE 

Cloth, l2mo., $1.50 net 
"Pour schools of thought in classic Greece emphasized each a feature of 
personality. Christianity takes up into itself all that was sound in each, and 
incorporates it, cleared of excess or perversion, into the complete conception. 
This in brief is what Dr. Hyde tells us. But let no one imagine that a book 
thus concisely described is for students of grizzled antiquity. On the con- 
trary, it is intensely, incisely modern. It is the modern representatives of 
Epicurus, Plato, Marcus Aurelius. with whom it is concerned, and their mis- 
sing of the ideal of personality that it describes and satirizes ; the modern 
evils resulting in individual, domestic, social, political life that it exposes and 
condemns. Consequently it is alive with present-day interests. In its exposi- 
tion of the Christian conception of personality, it holds thut the omission of 
any truth for which the ancient systems stood mutilates and impoverishes the 
Christian view of life."— The Outlook. 

PERSONAL AND IDEAL ELEMENTS 
IN EDUCATION 

By HENRY CHURCHILL KING 
President of Oberlin College; Author of " Theology and the Social 
Consciousness " and Reconstruction in Theology " 
Cloth, $1.50 net; postage, 11 cents 
Dr. King's addresses and papers for various occasions' deal with the prob- 
lem of the College in distinction from the University ; with the relation of 
Religion to Education. Ethics, and Life; with the conditions imposed on Reli- 
gious Education by Psychology and Pedagogy ; with the Educational end 
Evangelistic methods of Christian training as compared, and with the ethical, 
psychological, and physical conditions of character building. The central 
idea running througli the whole is the superiority of personality to mechan- 
ism, the sacredness of personality, and the means of its best development. 

THEOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL 
CONSCIOUSNESS 

A Study of the Relations of the Social Consciousness to Theology 
By HENRY CHURCHILL KING 

President of Oberlin College; Author of " Reconstruction in Theology," etc 
Cloth, Uino., $1.25 i 
" The strength of Professor King's eminently sane and helpful book is not 
in brilliant and suggestive sentences, bnt in its clear unfolding of an elemen- 
tal truth, and fearless and vigorous application of tint truth to religious 
thinking. One cannot read it carefully without realizing that his thinking 
has been cleared of much mistiness, and that he has ■ deepened conception of 
a truth of superlative importance, to which he has hut to be steadily loyal to 
find a rational interpretation of his spiriti. guide 

amid the mazes of theological speculation.*'— Tht U 9n § t fi M— H§t , 

RECONSTRUCTION IN THEOLOGY 

By HENRY CHURCHILL KING 

President of Oberlin College 

Cloth, ISmo., $1.50 

FROM THB AUTHOR'S PREPACK : 

"A new constructive period in theology, it may well be believed, is at 
hand. This book has been written with the ear: and hope that it 

may contribute something toward the forwarding of a movement already go- 
ing on — a really spiritual reconstruction of theology in terms that should 
bring it home to our own day. The book aims, tirst. to show that snc 
construction is needed and demanded, because of the changed intellectual. 
moral, and spiritual world in which we live: and then, to characterize briefly, 
but sufficiently, this new world of our day; and finally, to indicate the influ- 
ence which these convictions of our time ought to have upon theological con- 
ception and statement, especially in bringing us to a restatement of theology 
in terms of personal relation. It has been a constant desire of the writer to 
help intelligent laymen, as well as theological students and ministers, to a 
more thorough and sympathetic understanding of the great convictions ana 
scholarly movements of the day." 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York 



APR1019W 



THE INFLUENCE OF CHRIST 
IN MODERN LIFE 

Being a Study of the New Problems of the Church in American Society 

By NEWELL DWIGHT HILLIS, D. D. 

Author of " The Quest of Happiness," 
etc., etc. 

Cloth, 12mo„ $1.50 

" The book as a whole is not only interesting:, but makes a strong: appeal 
for Christian living: . . . expressed in a langmag-e that makes it timely and 
infused with a spirit that g:ives it power." — New York Commercial Adver- 
tiser. 

" The influence of his pagres can only be to nerve the reader, while facing: 
frankly all which hinders the progress of the gospel, to believe in and labor 
for it . . . These chapters touch one by their manly sympathy, and candor, 
while they also delig:ht by their genuine eloquence."— The Congregationalist, 

JESUS CHRIST AND THE 
SOCIAL QUESTION 

An Examination of the Teaching of Jesus in its Relation to 
Some Problems of Modern Social Life 

By FRANCIS GREENWOOD PEABODY 

Author of "The Religion of an Educated Man," etc. 

Cloth, l2mo., $1.50 

"In this 'Examination of the Teaching: of Jesus in its Relation to Some 
of the Problems of Modern Social Life,' Professor Peabody begins with a 
careful discussion of the compn hmsir, ntss of tltis teaching as at once per- 
fectly apt and adequate to every possible condition and need. He then con- 
siders the social principles of this teaching:; its relation to the family, to the 
rich, to the care of the poor, to the industrial order. The concluding: chapter 
is especially g:ood, setting: forth 'the Correlation of the Social Questions.' 
It is shown how this fact should affect those who are actually interested in 
particular reforms."— Times-Herald, Chicagro. 



THE RELIGION OF AN 
EDUCATED MAN 

Three Lectures 

By FRANCIS GREENWOOD PEABODY 

Dean of the Divinity School, 
Harvard University 

Cloth, ISmo., $1.00 net 

" They are pregmant with suggestion and reveal a depth of broad Christian 
scholarship together with a keen insight into the demands of the modern 
world upon tne scholar."— New York Commercial Advertiser. 

" His log:ic is sound, and the sane, temperate tone of his essays invites 
conviction."— Milwaukee Sentinel. 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York 



X 



"+±.4 



6 o^ 









^<? 

,/ ^ 






* & ** 



■ <, 









^ : 






^ °^ 



' ,r °^ 









^ 



\> ^ 1 • t ^ 

*, J" .IV 









&*> 











*' V s t. ^ ° / % v * * * • * . *% 



















^ Q, 













v ^ 



\' 



^ A^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process • 

^V - § Neutralizing agent: Magnes.umOx.de \ 

^ ^s Treatment Date: July 2005 S 

PreservationTechnologies 

**, ^P ^' m Thomson Park Dm; 

^ k ^v Cranberry Townshp. PA 160K | 

.4 ^ .H o. 








.4? 






r^ 




<S ■ * 



^ <*> 








■^°^% *sZLi*% &s£&'% G ^£l'- 



^"'. 




# % V 



- "W *Ji»'V%.o< 'Jill' ^A 0* 



^ 




